Shooting in California

Amazingfun

JustShon wrote: »

So that's one of them. Has it been confirmed that it was religiously motivated? Has it been confirmed that the others involved in the shooting were Islamic and committing terrorism in the name of Islam?

I won't be replying to anything from you again.

Here's some free advice though: read the thread, click the links already supplied, and use the device you're on to do some research.
You'll be amazed at what a bit of effort will get you.

JustShon

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well I dont think a "workplace shooting"(as Obama calls it):o requires a bullet proof vest, multiple explosives and an equally armed and armoured wife in tow, Im sure his recent beard growth, trip to Saudi, being a devout muslim and having Islamists celebrating on twitter are just side notes...

Use google and your own intelligence....
https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Islam+san+bernardino

We dont need Anne Doyle to spell out what happened here
"“He was quiet but always polite,” Maria Gutierrez told The News. “Maybe two years ago he became more religious. He grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing. The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”

Yeah, I admit if I were forced to put money on the motivation I'd choose religious extremism but nobody's forcing me and while the evidence is strong I'm going to wait for more facts to emerge.

Something more solid than "He was middle eastern and seemed to be more religious lately."

JustShon

Amazingfun wrote: »

I won't be replying to anything from you again.

Rightoh, good conversation man. Take care.

Jelle1880

Obama now saying it's possibly terrorism related (probably holding off until he has the full facts).

CrabRevolution

It's misleading when people use "the most restrictive gun laws in the US" line, I'd wager that even the most restrictive gun laws in the USA are more liberal than most other developed nations.

Just looking at this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

The restrictions include having to hold a firearm safety cert, a ban on automatic and assault weapons, and a 10 day waiting period. You could still do phenomenal damage while being within those limits.

If that's what constitutes strict, then other states must really be a free for all.

kettlehead

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Obama now saying it's possibly terrorism related (probably holding off until he has the full facts).

A wise man. It's a pity those in the media don't take a leaf out of his book.

mynameis905

RasTa wrote: »

Is it only terrorism when Muslims do it or something? What about when the white man shot up that church or the cinema or the kids school or the college etc etc

Gun control wouldn't have stopped it? Maybe god could have although guess he was busy

I think that terrorism is generally understood to be unlawful violence with a political objective behind it.

ceadaoin.

Confirmed he was in contact with overseas suspected terrorists. I wonder if this is a lot bigger than just these two. Maybe they are holding the info close to their chests until they've established exactly how big his network in the US is or if there even is one.

Manic Moran

This is going to be a long one...

JustShon wrote: »

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

Depends on what you mean by 'checks'. If you mean 'check to see if the man has been flagged by a competent agency (ie doctor etc), then that's -theoretically- already being done. It isn't, yet, I don't think, because they haven't properly sorted out the mechanics (and money) of doing it. Case in point, Virginia Tech. If you mean 'sit down with a psychiatrist for an hour interview before buying your gun', there aren't enough psychiatrists for people who already need help as it is, let alone enough to run 200,000 interviews for one Friday in November. And that's if an interview will tell you anything anyway. I strongly suspect that it takes more than one meeting to determine if someone's mad.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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."

You don't even have to get to the legal argument before it becomes a problem. I have a friend who was in a nasty car accident, friends killed. He now cannot ride in a convertible. Just can't do it. Gets in, freezes. He went to the doctor, it's obviously a mental/psychological issue he has. As someone with a psychological issue should he be barred from a firearm?

Or let's look at depression, PTSD, etc. Joe Bloggs (or his wife) has identified the early signs of depression. He has a choice. He can go to the doctor to get it dealt with before it becomes a major problem, or he can avoid it in the hope that it won't get worse because he's afraid that as soon as he knocks on the doctor's door, he'll be tagged as one of those great threats to society, his firearms will be confiscated and he'll be prohibited from ever buying another one again. Which is the better outcome here?

asherbassad wrote: »

Oh brother! More fantasyland hollywood bullshit

Is it? Granted, San Bernadino's only about two hours' drive from Hollywood, but I don't think what happened yesterday was a fantasy.

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?

As already mentioned, in the US, the active Army is prohibited from engaging in law enforcement absent very specific circumstances. Plus the Army bases tend to be in the middle of nowhere to provide training room. Reservists will take time to come in and so are unsuitable. States could, in theory, use full-time reservists (Chemical/Radiological/Biological response teams are an extant case in point), but it's a lot more efficient to use police for the job. In Ireland, the Gardai have armed units generally not too far apart from anywhere, and even the top tier ERU folks can get anywhere fairly quickly. Plus, in case of utter Paris or Mumbai style chaos, Army bases are often found in the cities and towns, as a holdover from the times that the Army were actually used to control the population.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Their stance on it is completely incompatible with common sense. They are for arming teachers for **** sake.

Common sense only if you agree with it, though, right? Give me a rational, not emotional, reason why this is a bad idea, given the situation. It is undeniable that a lot of these shootings are happening in schools. It is, I think, undesirable that schools be turned into fortresses, with big gates and armed guards at the entrances with metal detectors to prevent these shootings. It is undeniable that many teachers are allowed to be armed off school grounds and don't seem to be causing any issues. It is undeniable that a small number of schools and universities allow staff (and students in some cases) to be armed, and this also has not yet caused any issues. Given all this, given that as far as I know there is nothing about a school property line which causes a teacher with a carry permit, who we trust with our childrens' safety and future five days of almost every week, to become a homicidal maniac as soon as he or she sets foot in the classroom, what's the argument against? Not the 'guns don't belong in schools' argument. Not the 'guns are bad' argument. Not even the 'we shouldn't have to resort to teachers with guns' argument. These are emotional ones which do nothing. A solid, practical reason why this is so far from 'common sense' that it's damning.

Hyzepher wrote: »

The NRA are so biased and profit blind that they see no issue with allowing suspected terrorists - currently on no-fly lists - to have the right to buy weapons.

These are people who are viewed as such a threat that the authorities do no allow them in a plane. The NRA want the right for gun companies to sell to these people upheld.

Yes, a list which is so poorly managed that Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on it, and it took even a politician of that stature three weeks to get himself off it. Private Citizen Kareem Mohammed is going to have a much greater issue with carrying out his Constitutional rights if some random bureaucrat managed to put his name on a list even without his having done anything illegal to justify the restrictions.

RasTa wrote: »

Of course, it's too easy for any nutjob to get automatic weapons.

Just limit everyone to handguns and be done with it

Not sure if satire or not, but just in case.

Two legally owned automatic weapons are known to have been used in murders since 1934. One was a police machinegun which a cop used, off the job.

As to 'rifles which look like machine guns but are not.'

Of the 11,600 or so murders in 2014, 248 were known to have been committed with rifles of any sort, let alone specifically EBRs/SURs/AWs/Insert-name-of-choice-for-the-ones-based-on-ARs,-AKs-and-the-like. (vs about 650 unarmed, and 1,600 knives). That's about 2% for all rifles.

It just isn't a problem. Especially when one considers that the AR-15 is the most commonly sold rifle type in the US, and has been for years. They just aren't suited for routine criminal activity.

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.

The University of Melbourne took a look at that, and were unable to establish a causative relationship. They theorised that other actions (police, social policy etc) were also quite likely to be the cause of the effect. Not least because the 'gun ban' was actually not all that comprehensive, there was significant non-compliance. Still plenty of guns out in Australia. Assuming the very optimistic case that the US might follow the Australian rates of compliance of turn-in (And not the Canadian ones for registration, which were terrible), you're still looking at nearly 100,000,000 firearms in circulation.

And there is the minor fact, already well established, that the presence of firearms does not correlate directly with causation for with the US problems. I can't legally carry a gun down the street here in San Francisco, but you can legally carry a gun into a bar or a school in Prague. Which one has the bigger problem? Why is Australia brought up, where they have had no major incidents since the ban, but not neighbouring New Zealand where they have had no major incidents since they declined to ban?

Jelle1880 wrote: »

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 don't believe that is the NRA position. Certainly they say otherwise. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

JPNelsforearm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Confirmed he was in contact with overseas suspected terrorists. I wonder if this is a lot bigger than just these two. Maybe they are holding the info close to their chests until they've established exactly how big his network in the US is or if there even is one.

Shocker:rolleyes:

darkpagandeath

Remote control cars as bombs being reported. Also the level of planning vs just going to get a gun after an argument.

RasTa

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is going to be a long one...






Not sure if satire or not, but just in case.

Two legally owned automatic weapons are known to have been used in murders since 1934. One was a police machinegun which a cop used, off the job.

As to 'rifles which look like machine guns but are not.'

Of the 11,600 or so murders in 2014, 248 were known to have been committed with rifles of any sort, let alone specifically EBRs/SURs/AWs/Insert-name-of-choice-for-the-ones-based-on-ARs,-AKs-and-the-like. (vs about 650 unarmed, and 1,600 knives). That's about 2% for all rifles.

It just isn't a problem. Especially when one considers that the AR-15 is the most commonly sold rifle type in the US, and has been for years. They just aren't suited for routine criminal activity.

I personally couldn't care less if you continue to kill each other, but any idiot can see there is really no need for AR-15 or semi-automatic rifles.

Sandy Hook and Auroa above gun was used.

Anything semi automatic is not needed. Restrict it to single shot and be done, handgun or rifle.

ceadaoin.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Remote control cars as bombs being reported. Also the level of planning vs just going to get a gun after an argument.

Was anyone still buying the workplace dispute angle?

A search of the house found 12 IEDs with tools for making more and over 5000 rounds of ammo.

they weren't wearing bulletproof vests but tactical gear to store their equipment. Sounds like they never intended to live after they were done.

darkpagandeath

RasTa wrote: »

I personally couldn't care less if you continue to kill each other, but any idiot can see there is really no need for AR-15 or semi-automatic rifles.

Sandy Hook and Auroa above gun was used.

Anything semi automatic is not needed. Restrict it to single shot and be done, handgun or rifle.

What happens when you hare hunting squirrels you get charged by an elephant ? That's the logic used.

Eugene Norman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I thought that too, but a country like the US has too much influence over the rest of the world for us not to be affected by his crazyness.

The US is crazy already. In many ways Trump is saner than Bush or Hilary. And less a danger to world peace.

mynameis905

RasTa wrote: »

I personally couldn't care less if you continue to kill each other, but any idiot can see there is really no need for AR-15 or semi-automatic rifles.

Sandy Hook and Auroa above gun was used.

Anything semi automatic is not needed. Restrict it to single shot and be done, handgun or rifle.

+1

There is no need for anything other than small calibre target shooting rifles or legitimate hunting weapons. Regulate the living shíte out of the industry and ban handguns and automatic weapons. A five year old could spot the idiocy in giving the general public an unconditional constitutional right to carry firearms.

darkpagandeath

Wow news reporting This is Americas 355 th mass shooting this year. Not sure what criteria they are using though.

The Randy Riverbeast

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Wow news reporting This is Americas 355 th mass shooting this year. Not sure what criteria they are using though.

People point to the FBI's definition but it shows me this which is technically a mass murder.

Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).

This link has a bit more on it http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/what-is-a-mass-shooting

Copa Mundial

Only 10 short of one mass murder/shooting a day, and there's still a month left.

darkpagandeath

Copa Mundial wrote: »

Only 10 short of one mass murder/shooting a day, and there's still a month left.

And people deflect with well Paris had a mass shooting. No guns something something.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

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....

On the subject of ignorance, illegal immigrants are actually shown to be less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. If Trump was even slightly correct in the nonsense he spews, crime would be skyrocketing in the US over the last 25 years as the number of illegal immigrants has tripled. Yet strangely, violent crime - including the likes of murder, rape, and aggravated assault that you talk about - are down 48% over that time.

ceadaoin.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And people deflect with well Paris had a mass shooting. No guns something something.

Well the real issue in this case is how did a US born and raised, well educated middle class guy with a decent job become radicalised and go on to commit an act of mass murder.

Talking about gun control is a good way to deflect from that though.

darkpagandeath

Billy86 wrote: »

On the subject of ignorance, illegal immigrants are actually shown to be less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. If Trump was even slightly correct in the nonsense he spews, crime would be skyrocketing in the US over the last 25 years as the number of illegal immigrants has tripled. Yet strangely, violent crime - including the likes of murder, rape, and aggravated assault that you talk about - are down 48% over that time.

It's almost like illegal Mexicans want to stay off the police radar and work...

Billy86

BattleCorp wrote: »

As a law abiding person, it's of little consequence to me what military gear the cops have. As a law abiding person, I can't ever foresee a time when they will be using it on me.

Good thing the US police never make wrongful arrests, use unnecessary force or discriminate against darker coloured skin people or just those from poorer areas, so!

BoJack Horseman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the real issue in this case is how did a US born and raised, well educated middle class guy with a decent job become radicalised and go on to commit an act of mass murder.

Probably similar reasons why ditto happens in France & the UK?

JPNelsforearm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the real issue in this case is how did a US born and raised, well educated middle class guy with a decent job become radicalised and go on to commit an act of mass murder.

US foreign policy! Racism! Donald Trump! White People! The Confederate Flag! Islamophobia! Fox News! Gun Laws! Guns!

Pick one, it'll to be wheeled out in the coming days:rolleyes:

ceadaoin.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Probably similar reasons why ditto happens in France & the UK?

Well the reasons usually given in those cases is that they are marginalised, poor and uneducated and therefore easy pickings to be recruited. Those don't appear to apply in this case.

Custardpi

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the real issue in this case is how did a US born and raised, well educated middle class guy with a decent job become radicalised and go on to commit an act of mass murder.

Interesting that people are focusing on how the guy went wrong. It's just as possible that it was Tashfeen Malik who was the chief driver behind the attacks. Was her time in Saudi Arabia influential? It will be interesting to see what details emerge in the coming days.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

Good thing the US police never make wrongful arrests, use unnecessary force or discriminate against darker coloured skin people or just those from poorer areas, so!

Good thing those darker coloured folk dont have a massively disproportionate crime rate and overt hostility to police that would result in the use of unnecessary force or discrimination, isnt it.

Billy86

BattleCorp wrote: »

I live in Ireland. Shooting is my sport/hobby. I stand up for the vast majority of gun owners who are fully licenced law abiding citizens.

I don't stand up for ar5eholes who commit crimes with their firearms and the full weight of the law should be thrown at them.

When it comes to debate about terrorists, criminals and guns, licenced gun owners are thrown into the mix when it's nothing to do with them.

The amount of legally licenced gun owners who commit crimes is a tiny tiny minority. Over 99% of us live normal, law abiding lives, we just happen to enjoy shooting. It's fully licenced and regulated here in Ireland.

Banning guns because of the actions of so few seems unfair in my opinion.

A tiny minority of gun owners commit crimes with their firearms and there is a clamour to ban guns.

A tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorist crimes. There's not much of a clamour to ban Muslims.

To be fair - and I may be wrong since I am not a gun owner and never have been - but I don't think there is as much of a gun owner stigma in Ireland, or in many countries outside of the US. I don't have an issue with people owning guns, be it if they are a farmer or such who may need it, just live in rural areas (say in parts of rural Canada where you might just stumble across a bear in your back garden at any random point), or even for a hobby. I used to work in a bank with a lad who was the nicest guy you'd ever, pretty quiet until you got to know him type, would never hurt a fly. But he loved his guns - loved them... only in the same way some car fanatics love their motors, though.

But I do think there should be extensive criminal, psychological and general background checks prior to being granted a licence and that these should be re-evaluated every few years, maybe every decade or so. It's not the gun ownership stuff in the US that I have much issue with in and of itself, it's this pig-headed willful ignorance that needing to show you're not an violent ex-convict, radicalised Muslim/Christian/cultist/etc, someone with serious mental disorders, etc is somehow evil government just being evil for the sake of being evil.

Eugene Norman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the reasons usually given in those cases is that they are marginalised, poor and uneducated and therefore easy pickings to be recruited. Those don't appear to apply in this case.

It's never the case for terrorism. Largely a middle class pursuit ( the IRA was a partial exception).

ceadaoin.

Custardpi wrote: »

Interesting that people are focusing on how the guy went wrong. It's just as possible that it was Tashfeen Malik who was the chief driver behind the attacks. Was her time in Saudi Arabia influential? It will be interesting to see what details emerge in the coming days.

Yes, I have a feeling it will be revealed that she was the driving force behind his radicalisation and the attacks. Apparently they met online before meeting in Saudi Arabia. They could have been communicating for a while. Why bring a baby into that situation though is another question?

Suppose we will just have to wait and see

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

On the subject of ignorance, illegal immigrants are actually shown to be less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. If Trump was even slightly correct in the nonsense he spews, crime would be skyrocketing in the US over the last 25 years as the number of illegal immigrants has tripled. Yet strangely, violent crime - including the likes of murder, rape, and aggravated assault that you talk about - are down 48% over that time.

:pac: oh, is that right? straight out of "Billy86 news", is that? Be sure to tell that to the hundreds of victims, like the family of Kathryn Steinle:

Kathryn Steinle, 32, was shot to death (in the back) in broad daylight by alleged shooter Francisco Sanchez in front of her dad and a friend

Sanchez, 45, is a 7-time felon who should have been handed over to immigration authorities following a Bay Area arrest four months ago

Sanchez should have been handed over to immigration officials when last jailed, but was let go in line with San Francisco's 'sanctuary city' policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3147942/Woman-randomly-shot-death-popular-San-Francisco-pier.html


And Trump is right on just about everything, despite your sneering.

ceadaoin.

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac: oh, is that right? straight out of "Billy86 news", is that? Be sure to tell that to the hundreds of victims, like the family of Kathryn Steinle:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3147942/Woman-randomly-shot-death-popular-San-Francisco-pier.html


And Trump is right on just about everything, despite your sneering.

No he isn't, Trump is a joke and hasn't a hope of becoming the next president thankfully.

expectationlost

terrorism or work related? how about, its both

Amazingfun

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No he isn't, Trump is a joke and hasn't a hope of becoming the next president thankfully.

I'll be sure to let him know that "ceadoin" says he should pack it in :pac:

Samaris

Amazingfun wrote: »

I'll be sure to let him know that "ceadoin" says he should pack it in :pac:

Be lovely if you would. He's a crass, ignorant, obnoxious bully in his business dealings, his talk and his way of going about his campaign too. He also seems to be a pretty incompetent businessman, at least for the company. He manages to come out of it fairly well-off, but only on the backs of his jobless employees when his companies liquidate.

Actually, kinda surprised we don't have a Donald Trump thread. He does enough crazy stuff to keep us all entertained (and probably mostly mildly horrified) for months...

kettlehead

Billy86 wrote: »

On the subject of ignorance, illegal immigrants are actually shown to be less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. If Trump was even slightly correct in the nonsense he spews, crime would be skyrocketing in the US over the last 25 years as the number of illegal immigrants has tripled. Yet strangely, violent crime - including the likes of murder, rape, and aggravated assault that you talk about - are down 48% over that time.

Huge numbers of them are violent criminals. Technically, every illegal is a criminal. Including the 50k Irish trespassers.

Sarah Saldana, ICE’s director, disclosed to Congress on Wednesday that the agency is apprehending and removing fewer illegal immigrants than in past years.

Somewhere around 179,029 “undocumented criminals with final orders of removal” from the United States currently remain at large across the country and are essentially untraceable, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who disclosed these numbers during a Wednesday hearing.

kupus

I have a feeling that 2016 will be a very bloody year

attacks are going to escalate in other countries, I think russia is going to be bombed, probably chechen related cos they are directly funded by saudi and saudi hates russia. MOre attacks in eurozone and america.
Kosovo/Albanian expansion into macedonia.
Bosnia separatists (all 3 groups of them getting more than mouthy with each other)

Its well known that Saudi wants russia to bleed. If you are looking for links. Find your own its not that hard.
or maybe not, what do i know Im just a crank on the internet.

Billy86

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

People point to the FBI's definition but it shows me this which is technically a mass murder.



This link has a bit more on it http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/what-is-a-mass-shooting

I think the logic used is to replace 'murder' with 'shooting' - so if four murdered = mass murder, then four shot = mass shooting.

There's a database of them here, with news links for each incident - http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 - but it's temporarily unavailable, looks like they had a crazy traffic spike in the last few hours. Bookmark it and visit it later if you want, it's absolutely ridiculous.

namloc1980

BattleCorp wrote: »

As a law abiding person, it's of little consequence to me what military gear the cops have. As a law abiding person, I can't ever foresee a time when they will be using it on me.

As a law abiding person shouldn't you be very concerned about militarism of the police force?

darkpagandeath

namloc1980 wrote: »

As a law abiding person shouldn't you be very concerned about militarism of the police force?

Yes and no, The argument should be why do the American police treat the public they serve as the Enemy until proven otherwise.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Good thing those darker coloured folk dont have a massively disproportionate crime rate and overt hostility to police that would result in the use of unnecessary force or discrimination, isnt it.

Yeah, because it's not like those darker coloured folk have a much larger history of worse socio-economic conditions imposed on them largely by white people. No, no, not at all. It's their dark skin that makes them prone to crime, it just makes sense!

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac: oh, is that right? straight out of "Billy86 news", is that? Be sure to tell that to the hundreds of victims, like the family of Kathryn Steinle:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3147942/Woman-randomly-shot-death-popular-San-Francisco-pier.html


And Trump is right on just about everything, despite your sneering.

I see you're using the emotive, anecdotal evidence approach - you really do fit right in with your crowd! Do you want me to link to the stories of victims of crime from American citizens?

Here is statistical evidence - http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

Here is more, from the right-leaning Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/

As for your last line, do try harder.

kettlehead

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, because it's not like those darker coloured folk have a much larger history of worse socio-economic conditions imposed on them largely by white people. No, no, not at all. It's their dark skin that makes them prone to crime, it just makes sense!

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

darkpagandeath

kettlehead wrote: »

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

hey ... Hey ... Check your privilege bro. I hear it's old whiteys fault one does not do well at school. :pac:

Sand

Manic Moran wrote: »

Evidence based opinion

Whenever you delve into the gun issue in the US, two overly simplistic views often come to the fore. A US redneck "from my cold dead hands" view and a "ban all legal guns, that will solve all illegal gun activities" view. I don't find either compelling.

But I've got to say the evidence based opinions tend to reinforce the view that legal ownership of guns is not the problem in the US, and banning that legal ownership is not the solution. I think people from outside the US assume its the wild wild west when it comes to guns, not giving credit to Americans who struggle to balance constitutional liberties with responsibilities and bear the costs of failure on the issue. The lack of thought and information that Irish posters have on the issue is illuminated by one poster voicing the view that "obviously" all rifles ought to be banned, handguns are okay and shortly afterwards another poster saying that obviously all handguns should be banned, and rifles are fine.

Long story short, good post.

darkpagandeath

Sand wrote: »

Whenever you delve into the gun issue in the US, two overly simplistic views often come to the fore. A US redneck "from my cold dead hands" view and a "ban all legal guns, that will solve all illegal gun activities" view. I don't find either compelling.

But I've got to say the evidence based opinions tend to reinforce the view that legal ownership of guns is not the problem in the US, and banning that legal ownership is not the solution. I think people from outside the US assume its the wild wild west when it comes to guns, not giving credit to Americans who struggle to balance constitutional liberties with responsibilities and bear the costs of failure on the issue. The lack of thought and information that Irish posters have on the issue is illuminated by one poster voicing the view that "obviously" all rifles ought to be banned, handguns are okay and shortly afterwards another poster saying that obviously all handguns should be banned, and rifles are fine.

Long story short, good post.

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

Shurimgreat

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!

KingBrian2

kupus wrote: »

I have a feeling that 2016 will be a very bloody year

attacks are going to escalate in other countries, I think russia is going to be bombed, probably chechen related cos they are directly funded by saudi and saudi hates russia. MOre attacks in eurozone and america.
Kosovo/Albanian expansion into macedonia.
Bosnia separatists (all 3 groups of them getting more than mouthy with each other)

Its well known that Saudi wants russia to bleed. If you are looking for links. Find your own its not that hard.
or maybe not, what do i know Im just a crank on the internet.

You talk more sense than more than half of the experts.