Metro Jacksonville

QuoteAuthorities in San Bernardino, California, responded Wednesday to reports of an active shooter or more than one shooter.

There were reports from the sheriff's department that there were one to three suspects. The fire department said it was responding to a "20 victim shooting incident."

[Latest developments, posted at 3:08 p.m. ET]

• A woman who works at a building where the shootings occurred texted her father, Terry Pettit: "Shooting at my work. People shot." Pettit told CNN affiliate KABC his daughter, who was locked in her office, told him 10 to 20 people were shot.

• CNN affiliate KABC reported that the shooting took place at Inland Regional Center, a facility for people with developmental disabilities.

Inland Regional Center's Facebook page says it employs nearly 670 staff at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, providing services to more than 30,200 people.

It aims to "work on a personal, one-on-one basis with people with developmental disabilities to make their lives better as they define it."

No information is yet available on how many people were at the facility at the time of the shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/
(http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/)

Live Reporting via BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-34967929 (http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-34967929)

Emergency Response - Live Audio

https://soundcloud.com/alertpage-1/san-bernardinoca-active-shooter-response (https://soundcloud.com/alertpage-1/san-bernardinoca-active-shooter-response)


Reddit Live Updates:

https://www.reddit.com/live/w0nn1o5hu90y (https://www.reddit.com/live/w0nn1o5hu90y)

Location of shooting. Apparently, they attacked a facility for those with disabilities.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Inland+Regional+Center/@34.0754717,-117.2790161,18z/data=!4m7!1m4!3m3!1s0x80dcac9818353b2b:0x9d9700c449ec4831!2sS+Waterman+Ave+%26+Park+Center+Cir,+San+Bernardino,+CA+92408!3b1!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0xb9111ae3abbee3ac

Live reporting from an LA News Station.

I was going to say that they were reporting responsibly until one of the reporters said something like "this could be a terrorist attack not unlike the recent attacks in Paris or it could be a normal type of shooting..."


http://www.foxla.com/live (http://www.foxla.com/live)

#SanBernardino Twitter Feed

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=%23sanbernardino&src=typd (https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=%23sanbernardino&src=typd)

I think the fact that there were multiple shooters involved makes this a terrorist act. 

I usually hate speculation, but something has occurred to me. If reports are correct, the shooting may have taken place at an event for county employees. The first thing that makes me think of is anti-government types. But we'll see. It's all very disturbing.

pretty weird.  Usually anti-govt folks attack fed gov't places and if it was workplace violence, usually that is just one person. 

Quote from: fsquid on December 02, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
pretty weird.  Usually anti-govt folks attack fed gov't places and if it was workplace violence, usually that is just one person.

You never know. It's all speculation, of course. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. I suppose we've had to deal with enough shootings by now to know that most the 'information' that we get tends to be inaccurate at best.

The other day a soccer game was cancelled in Germany. It was reported that they found an ambulance filled with explosives. Turns out it was just a bomb threat and the story about the ambulance disappeared from the web. I guess that's a hazard of today's age of social media and access to real-time information.

Quote from: fsquid on December 02, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
pretty weird.  Usually anti-govt folks attack fed gov't places and if it was workplace violence, usually that is just one person. 

Yeah, the anti-gov people usually work alone, except in the case of the OKC bombing. I think it's still unconfirmed if it was 1,2 or 3 shooters. They're reporting they got away, just horrible.

News reports say that the police stopped a black SUV and after arguing with police about a line of questioning, a gun battle ensued.

One shooter is dead, one seriously injured and one got away.

Police have set up a perimeter around the area.

Sounds like all criminals involved are dead or captured. It's still ear, but news is reporting 1 female was involved. A bit unusual.

Quote from: coredumped on December 02, 2015, 10:37:01 PM
Sounds like all criminals involved are dead or captured. It's still ear, but news is reporting 1 female was involved. A bit unusual.

Unfortunately that probably indicates what kind of group this was.

What was reported tonight, something like 366 shootings this year over 330 days or something like that and the President has a "few ways to slow it down". What an insult to the families of those killed, he now has a plan? Where was he earlier?

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 03, 2015, 12:12:14 AM
What was reported tonight, something like 366 shootings this year over 330 days or something like that and the President has a "few ways to slow it down". What an insult to the families of those killed, he now has a plan? Where was he earlier?

Have you not been listening to everything he has been saying after each and every mass shooting?

Example:

This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.  We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.  When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer.  When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer.  When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities.  We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.  So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn't make sense.

So, tonight, as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids a little closer are thinking about the families who aren't so fortunate, I'd ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws, and to save lives, and to let young people grow up.  And that will require a change of politics on this issue.  And it will require that the American people, individually, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, when you decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision.  If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon)

In a brief preview of an interview with CBS that was set to air on Thursday morning, Obama reiterated his call for increased gun-safety laws, stronger background checks, and a ban on gun purchases for people on the TSA's no-fly list.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-2015-12?r=US&IR=T (http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-2015-12?r=US&IR=T)

Husband and wife, devout Muslims, house littered with IED's. I think everyone can add one and one together here.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 03, 2015, 12:12:14 AM
What was reported tonight, something like 366 shootings this year over 330 days or something like that and the President has a "few ways to slow it down". What an insult to the families of those killed, he now has a plan? Where was he earlier?

You do realize he faces opposition on gun control from the majority of the senate, right?

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 03, 2015, 12:12:14 AM
Where was he earlier?

Being blocked by Republicans in Congress.

Quote from: Dapperdan on December 03, 2015, 08:04:28 AM
Husband and wife, devout Muslims, house littered with IED's. I think everyone can add one and one together here.

it is what it is.

Quote from: finehoe on December 03, 2015, 08:48:47 AM

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 03, 2015, 12:12:14 AM
Where was he earlier?

Being blocked by Republicans in Congress.

Oh not this again - doesn't CA have some of the toughest gun laws in the country? Behind Chicago of course.

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 10:07:21 AM

Quote from: finehoe on December 03, 2015, 08:48:47 AM

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 03, 2015, 12:12:14 AM
Where was he earlier?

Being blocked by Republicans in Congress.

Oh not this again - doesn't CA have some of the toughest gun laws in the country? Behind Chicago of course.

Apparently not so strict that a couple of what appear to be religious extremist terrorists couldn't buy guns and go on a shooting spree.

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 10:07:21 AM
doesn't CA have some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

No, it doesn't.  But it's irrelevant anyway, because mtraininjax was talking about the President, not the governor of California.

Quote from: finehoe on December 03, 2015, 10:14:24 AM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 10:07:21 AM
doesn't CA have some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

No, it doesn't.  But it's irrelevant anyway, because mtraininjax was talking about the President, not the governor of California.

Yes, it does.

http://gunlawscorecard.org/

Pretty sure the firearms restrictions are pretty tough in Paris too...

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 12:51:31 PM
Pretty sure the firearms restrictions are pretty tough in Paris too...

Perhaps thats why they don't have a mass shooting daily in france.

Size matters.  And I'm pretty sure we're a bit more diverse here as well.  So apples and not apples.

(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55368e89e4b0aa362eee954a/t/5580a8e2e4b041b423db18ef/1434495203448/France+v+US.JPG)

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 12:56:47 PM
Perhaps thats why they don't have a mass shooting daily in france.

Exactly.  Based on numbers from The Washington Post, the U.S. averaged 3.2 gun-related homicides per 100k people  – the overwhelming leader in the modern world. How many did France average? A grand total of .06 gun-related homicides per 100k people. Geographic size is irrelevant.

In fact, the United States averages more gun-related deaths in just one week than France will for the entire year... including this attack.

It would take a terrorist attack of the magnitude they just experienced to happen practically every week to even come close to the rate of ordinary gun violence we experience in the United States every single year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

I want to know why there hasn't been any outrage over the two "mass shootings" that have happened here in the last month!

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 01:00:56 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 12:51:31 PM
Pretty sure the firearms restrictions are pretty tough in Paris too...

Perhaps thats why they don't have a mass shooting daily in france.

Size matters.  And I'm pretty sure we're a bit more diverse here as well.  So apples and not apples.

(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55368e89e4b0aa362eee954a/t/5580a8e2e4b041b423db18ef/1434495203448/France+v+US.JPG)

Size matters, but not when considering rate. And yes, the USA is a bit more ethnically diverse.

Quote from: acme54321 on December 03, 2015, 01:33:20 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

I want to know why there hasn't been any outrage over the two "mass shootings" that have happened here in the last month!

Which ones? I am not sure I read about those (assuming you were talking about Jacksonville).

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

Gun control has nothing to do with the "nanny state" any more than trying to stop Pakistan or North Korea from getting nuclear weapons does.

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 01:59:26 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 03, 2015, 01:33:20 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

I want to know why there hasn't been any outrage over the two "mass shootings" that have happened here in the last month!

Which ones? I am not sure I read about those (assuming you were talking about Jacksonville).

The ones shown on that "mass shooting" map posted earlier.

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 03:22:04 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 02:11:12 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

Gun control has nothing to do with the "nanny state" any more than trying to stop Pakistan or North Korea from getting nuclear weapons does.

this is not going to stop idiots from shilling for a handful of manufacturers adam.  They've been trained that product placement is literally protected in the US Constitution, and are willing to attack (and in some cases kill) anyone who suggests that a slowdown of gun sales to the country that has the most mass shootings in the world might be in order.

After all, with most countries having banned the small collection of gun models that are used to do most of these mass killings (with a corresponding cataclysmic drop in gun murders) the potential market has pretty much shrunk to Americans.

If everyone in america doesn't start buying these weapons, then who will they be sold to?

Coredumped will literally make any claim he can think of to prevent such a tragic loss of sales.

It's sad that we can't seem to be able to do anything to stop or reduce these sorts of killings. But as someone pointed out to me, America made its mind up after Sandy Hook. If you can watch your little kids being slaughtered and still not do anything about it, you're beyond help.

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 03:28:27 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 03:22:04 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 02:11:12 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/#.VmBMKkoTC

Yawn, most of those were domestic, meaning, they could have also been committed with a kitchen knife. We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

And 3D printers can print guns, shall we ban those too? What about instructions on wikipedia, let's ban that also!

Where will it stop with you nanny-state folks?

Gun control has nothing to do with the "nanny state" any more than trying to stop Pakistan or North Korea from getting nuclear weapons does.

this is not going to stop idiots from shilling for a handful of manufacturers adam.  They've been trained that product placement is literally protected in the US Constitution, and are willing to attack (and in some cases kill) anyone who suggests that a slowdown of gun sales to the country that has the most mass shootings in the world might be in order.

After all, with most countries having banned the small collection of gun models that are used to do most of these mass killings (with a corresponding cataclysmic drop in gun murders) the potential market has pretty much shrunk to Americans.

If everyone in america doesn't start buying these weapons, then who will they be sold to?

Coredumped will literally make any claim he can think of to prevent such a tragic loss of sales.

It's sad that we can't seem to be able to do anything to stop or reduce these sorts of killings. But as someone pointed out to me, America made its mind up after Sandy Hook. If you can watch your little kids being slaughtered and still not do anything about it, you're beyond help.

No doubt finehoe... we certainly live in a sick society.  I happen to agree with our president that something should be done... but as usual he is very limited and short sighted in his target.  I mean why limit his attention to just 1/10th of the Bill of Rights when there are 9 others that could be eradicated or modified... for example... religion seems to be a large factor in many of these incidents... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry... I mean if their not doing anything wrong... whats the harm?  Certainly our freedom of press is culpable to some degree... perhaps a national registry of ...bloggers... and "reporters"... I mean really... whats the harm?  I mean... modification or elimination just those three of the first ten amendments should do wonders...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe... we certainly live in a sick society.  I happen to agree with our president that something should be done... but as usual he is very limited and short sighted in his target.  I mean why limit his attention to just 1/10th of the Bill of Rights when there are 9 others that could be eradicated or modified... for example... religion seems to be a large factor in many of these incidents... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry... I mean if their not doing anything wrong... whats the harm?  Certainly our freedom of press is culpable to some degree... perhaps a national registry of ...bloggers... and "reporters"... I mean really... whats the harm?  I mean... modification or elimination just those three of the first ten amendments should do wonders...

Snark....

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 03:41:44 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe... we certainly live in a sick society.  I happen to agree with our president that something should be done... but as usual he is very limited and short sighted in his target.  I mean why limit his attention to just 1/10th of the Bill of Rights when there are 9 others that could be eradicated or modified... for example... religion seems to be a large factor in many of these incidents... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry... I mean if their not doing anything wrong... whats the harm?  Certainly our freedom of press is culpable to some degree... perhaps a national registry of ...bloggers... and "reporters"... I mean really... whats the harm?  I mean... modification or elimination just those three of the first ten amendments should do wonders...

Snark....

Not really... why limit the solution to a small portion of our rights... I say look at the whole bunch of em... perhaps we are just too damn free...

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:12:07 PM
shocking isn't it?  It only took ten years for the country to become a daily blood bath after the ban on assualt weapons was ended.

Didn't our gun advocates here on MJ call the rest of us liberal moonbeam idiots for predicting this would happen? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Well anyone that ignores facts is an idiot. :) FYI, most of these shootings were done under your ever-so-effective assault weapons ban:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1990s

INCLUDING Columbine, which took 15 and wounded 21, worse than this one.

Like I said, murder is already illegal, why do people think banning guns will stop them?

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:32:45 PM

Keep shilling for the manufacturers, coredumped.  Hopefully they send you bonus checks.

Sorry friend, I'm not getting paid. Nor do I own an assault rifle. I'm simply saying that banning guns won't stop murders, just like prohibition didn't stop drinking, and the war on drugs hasn't stopped people from using.

Let's put the blame where it belongs, on the human garbage that does these sick things.

People will always kill, they've killed before guns, they kill where guns are banned and they kill with things other than guns.
You won't legislate morals, but good luck trying.

Just make sure you arm the police, and take all the arms of the citizens, what could possibly go wrong there?  ::)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:45:42 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 03:41:44 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe... we certainly live in a sick society.  I happen to agree with our president that something should be done... but as usual he is very limited and short sighted in his target.  I mean why limit his attention to just 1/10th of the Bill of Rights when there are 9 others that could be eradicated or modified... for example... religion seems to be a large factor in many of these incidents... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry... I mean if their not doing anything wrong... whats the harm?  Certainly our freedom of press is culpable to some degree... perhaps a national registry of ...bloggers... and "reporters"... I mean really... whats the harm?  I mean... modification or elimination just those three of the first ten amendments should do wonders...

Snark....

Not really... why limit the solution to a small portion of our rights... I say look at the whole bunch of em... perhaps we are just too damn free...

I hear ya. 

Maybe I don't get it because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea why people believe that more laws are going to curb lawless acts?

I mean let's use Stephen's heroin reference:

QuoteLock a bag of heroin in your private vehicle and tell me about the unlimited rights granted to you under the fourth amendment.

Last time I checked, heroin in illegal in 50 out of 50 states, yet somehow this 'innocent' person is screaming illegal search after he gets busted for possession in this particular example. 

How did that law against illegal substances work in that case?

Point being, laws don't fix problems.  Somehow the culture has to change, and I don't think we get there by tightening the ropes. 

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 04:27:57 PM



Like I said, murder is already illegal, why do people think banning guns will stop them?

Because the evidence shows that alternative forms of murder do not increase with a reduction in firearms availability:

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html)

Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

Sorry.  My feed is full of false-flag theories, quasi-politi-gious statements and both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.  No actual news to post.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 05:04:07 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:45:42 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 03:41:44 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe... we certainly live in a sick society.  I happen to agree with our president that something should be done... but as usual he is very limited and short sighted in his target.  I mean why limit his attention to just 1/10th of the Bill of Rights when there are 9 others that could be eradicated or modified... for example... religion seems to be a large factor in many of these incidents... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry... I mean if their not doing anything wrong... whats the harm?  Certainly our freedom of press is culpable to some degree... perhaps a national registry of ...bloggers... and "reporters"... I mean really... whats the harm?  I mean... modification or elimination just those three of the first ten amendments should do wonders...

Snark....

Not really... why limit the solution to a small portion of our rights... I say look at the whole bunch of em... perhaps we are just too damn free...

I hear ya. 

Maybe I don't get it because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea why people believe that more laws are going to curb lawless acts?

I mean let's use Stephen's heroin reference:

QuoteLock a bag of heroin in your private vehicle and tell me about the unlimited rights granted to you under the fourth amendment.

Last time I checked, heroin in illegal in 50 out of 50 states, yet somehow this 'innocent' person is screaming illegal search after he gets busted for possession in this particular example. 

How did that law against illegal substances work in that case?

Point being, laws don't fix problems.  Somehow the culture has to change, and I don't think we get there by tightening the ropes. 

I hear you too.  My point about national registration Religions or reporters sounds silly at first.  Until you realize that is exactly what they want me and you to submit to simply for attempting to exercise a right.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 05:14:38 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

Sorry.  My feed is full of false-flag theories, quasi-politi-gious statements and both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.  No actual news to post.

It really wasn't meant for you...lol

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:12:07 PM
shocking isn't it?  It only took ten years for the country to become a daily blood bath after the ban on assualt weapons was ended.

Didn't our gun advocates here on MJ call the rest of us liberal moonbeam idiots for predicting this would happen? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Do you realize that the guns outlawed under the AWB functioned the same as the complaint version of those same guns?  The AWB was nothing more than a feel good measure.  You could still legally buy an AK pattern rifle that would accept a 30 round magazine.  The only the the AWB outlawed that may have some sort of tactical advantage was folding stocks.  You should rad up on what that ban actually banned before blabbering about it preventing bloodbaths.... it didn't.

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Lol...I'm sure that's it Adam.  But the other day pictures were posted and political motives assigned within hours... it's just strange.

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

That actually brings up something that I find kind of interesting.

Tragedy happens all over the world more frequently than I'd like to think  Some things we just grow numb too - murders in Africa, murders in the Middle East, revolutions in South America - to the point that those events aren't typically covered unless it's something out of the norm.

The fact that this isn't plastered all over the place in the UK tells me that we (the USA) is just another country where daily shootings/massacres are the 'norm' and not really worth airtime outside of our own country.

Kind of puts things in perspective.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe...

Why is this addressed to me?  It's not my quote.  ???

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry...

Trump's beat you to it:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-registering-muslims/416973/

Quote from: finehoe on December 03, 2015, 07:19:54 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
No doubt finehoe...

Why is this addressed to me?  It's not my quote.  ???

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 03:38:43 PM... perhaps registering churches, mosques, and temples... along with their associated congregants.  You know... a national registry...

Trump's beat you to it:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-registering-muslims/416973/

Nice try... this is in reference to firearm registration... it is such a good solution then certainly you should be open to other registration drives... you know cause they got nothing to hide right?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 03, 2015, 05:39:16 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

That actually brings up something that I find kind of interesting.

Tragedy happens all over the world more frequently than I'd like to think  Some things we just grow numb too - murders in Africa, murders in the Middle East, revolutions in South America - to the point that those events aren't typically covered unless it's something out of the norm.

The fact that this isn't plastered all over the place in the UK tells me that we (the USA) is just another country where daily shootings/massacres are the 'norm' and not really worth airtime outside of our own country.

Kind of puts things in perspective.

I think that's part of it. It certainly made the news here - but most people see it as just another shooting in America. It seems to happen an awful lot.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Lol...I'm sure that's it Adam.  But the other day pictures were posted and political motives assigned within hours... it's just strange.

That's not to say I haven't read descriptions of the suspects or perpetrators. I'm given to understand the male was Asian and the female was believed to be either Arab or Asian (but having moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia). Apparently they have or had a 6 month old child.

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 12:48:16 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 03, 2015, 05:18:29 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:12:07 PM
shocking isn't it?  It only took ten years for the country to become a daily blood bath after the ban on assualt weapons was ended.

Didn't our gun advocates here on MJ call the rest of us liberal moonbeam idiots for predicting this would happen? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Do you realize that the guns outlawed under the AWB functioned the same as the complaint version of those same guns?  The AWB was nothing more than a feel good measure.  You could still legally buy an AK pattern rifle that would accept a 30 round magazine.  The only the the AWB outlawed that may have some sort of tactical advantage was folding stocks.  You should rad up on what that ban actually banned before blabbering about it preventing bloodbaths.... it didn't.

ah.  the law slowed down the incidences, and then immediately after the law expired (thanks to your fellow travellers) the rate of mass shootings began shooting up in geometric proportions.

But the two things are not related to each other, and I need to read up on stuff before i post these inconvenient numbers.

Sounds reasonable.

Ok, let's see it.  I'd love to hear your analysis of the ban and how it prevented mass murderers from buying high capacity semi automatic rifles (hint, it didn't).    I know you have your agenda, which is fine, but in this case you're wrong.  The guns legal before, during, and after the ban all functioned the same.  Just a few minutes of reading the Wikipedia article you lined would reveal that.  So it wasn't the guns themselves that prevented anything.  There a number of huge developments in that 10 year period that came about and profoundly changed our society.  Maybe those had something to do with it?  I do know one thing, the physical properties of the firearms that were banned had nothing to do with it, the guns were functionally the same the whole time. 

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 12:48:16 AM(thanks to your fellow travellers)

What is that supposed to mean?  Coming from you I imagine it's some sort of veiled insult on my intelligence.

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 08:54:04 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 04, 2015, 05:53:29 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 12:48:16 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 03, 2015, 05:18:29 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:12:07 PM
shocking isn't it?  It only took ten years for the country to become a daily blood bath after the ban on assualt weapons was ended.

Didn't our gun advocates here on MJ call the rest of us liberal moonbeam idiots for predicting this would happen? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Do you realize that the guns outlawed under the AWB functioned the same as the complaint version of those same guns?  The AWB was nothing more than a feel good measure.  You could still legally buy an AK pattern rifle that would accept a 30 round magazine.  The only the the AWB outlawed that may have some sort of tactical advantage was folding stocks.  You should rad up on what that ban actually banned before blabbering about it preventing bloodbaths.... it didn't.

ah.  the law slowed down the incidences, and then immediately after the law expired (thanks to your fellow travellers) the rate of mass shootings began shooting up in geometric proportions.

But the two things are not related to each other, and I need to read up on stuff before i post these inconvenient numbers.

Sounds reasonable.

Ok, let's see it.  I'd love to hear your analysis of the ban and how it prevented mass murderers from buying high capacity semi automatic rifles (hint, it didn't).    I know you have your agenda, which is fine, but in this case you're wrong.  The guns legal before, during, and after the ban all functioned the same.  Just a few minutes of reading the Wikipedia article you lined would reveal that.  So it wasn't the guns themselves that prevented anything.  There a number of huge developments in that 10 year period that came about and profoundly changed our society.  Maybe those had something to do with it?  I do know one thing, the physical properties of the firearms that were banned had nothing to do with it, the guns were functionally the same the whole time.

you  mean other than the actual numbers, right?

Let's see em. 

Or, just explain to me how banning these features causes a downturn is mass shootings:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher mount

The following guns are compliant with the 1994 AWB.  These were available for purchase the entire time the AWB was in place, along with any capacity magazine you wanted.  Hopefully these images will convey better than I can in words that the AWB had no teeth and in fact didn't ban "assault weapons":







Now, I want to know how you think the AWB actually caused a downturn in mass shootings.  I'm not overly concerned about the numbers, they aren't conclusive one way or the other.  I want to know how YOU think that those features that were banned would prevent anyone from going on a shooting spree.  Tell me, please. 

Quote from: acme54321 on December 04, 2015, 09:38:55 AM
Now, I want to know how you think the AWB actually caused a downturn in mass shootings.  I'm not overly concerned about the numbers, they aren't conclusive one way or the other.  I want to know how YOU think that those features that were banned would prevent anyone from going on a shooting spree.  Tell me, please. 

It's the same way banning drugs has stopped its usage all together! All they have to do is ban it in Washington and *POOF* it stops country wide! Congress can solve all our problems, just let them in to your lives people.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 08:10:19 PM
... this is in reference to firearm registration... it is such a good solution then certainly you should be open to other registration drives... you know cause they got nothing to hide right?

What do you have to hide when you register your automobile?  What are young men hiding when they register for the draft?  Your argument is specious.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 02:37:20 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Lol...I'm sure that's it Adam.  But the other day pictures were posted and political motives assigned within hours... it's just strange.

That's not to say I haven't read descriptions of the suspects or perpetrators. I'm given to understand the male was Asian and the female was believed to be either Arab or Asian (but having moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia). Apparently they have or had a 6 month old child.

Wow... now 5 pages in and still... not a single perp photo or over the top speculation of political motives on this forum.  It's just odd that with the Planned Parenthood shooting pix were posted and pages of wild speculation regarding motives dominated the thread...  simply strange...

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,25716.0.html

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 10:25:30 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 08:10:19 PM
... this is in reference to firearm registration... it is such a good solution then certainly you should be open to other registration drives... you know cause they got nothing to hide right?

What do you have to hide when you register your automobile?  What are young men hiding when they register for the draft?  Your argument is specious.

Which Article is Freedom to Drive again?  I would support that amendment if it was proposed...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 04, 2015, 10:26:48 AM

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 02:37:20 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Lol...I'm sure that's it Adam.  But the other day pictures were posted and political motives assigned within hours... it's just strange.

That's not to say I haven't read descriptions of the suspects or perpetrators. I'm given to understand the male was Asian and the female was believed to be either Arab or Asian (but having moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia). Apparently they have or had a 6 month old child.

Wow... now 5 pages in and still... not a single perp photo or over the top speculation of political motives on this forum.  It's just odd that with the Planned Parenthood shooting pix were posted and pages of wild speculation regarding motives dominated the thread...  simply strange...

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,25716.0.html

Feel free to post a pic and offer an opinion  ;)

If you go back a few pages, you might see where I mentioned it appears to be religious terrorism.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 10:38:14 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 04, 2015, 10:26:48 AM

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 02:37:20 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:27:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:18:38 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 03, 2015, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 05:06:13 PM
Oddly... 4 pages of this thread and no pictures posted of the perpetrators yet.  No wild conjecture of political persuasions.

I've not seen any pictures of the perpetrators in the news. I've seen the brother-in-law or whoever he is and his wife, but not the shooters.

That's really weird Adam... his pictures are all over... how strange

Maybe it has something to do with where I live. The news here is more focused on the fact that Parliament has just voted to start murdering Syrians.

Lol...I'm sure that's it Adam.  But the other day pictures were posted and political motives assigned within hours... it's just strange.

That's not to say I haven't read descriptions of the suspects or perpetrators. I'm given to understand the male was Asian and the female was believed to be either Arab or Asian (but having moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia). Apparently they have or had a 6 month old child.

Wow... now 5 pages in and still... not a single perp photo or over the top speculation of political motives on this forum.  It's just odd that with the Planned Parenthood shooting pix were posted and pages of wild speculation regarding motives dominated the thread...  simply strange...

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,25716.0.html

Feel free to post a pic and offer an opinion  ;)

If you go back a few pages, you might see where I mentioned it appears to be religious terrorism.

Thanks Adam... my query/observation is not really directed at you... but the contrast between the two threads is simply amazing...

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 10:43:46 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 04, 2015, 09:38:55 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 08:54:04 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 04, 2015, 05:53:29 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 12:48:16 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 03, 2015, 05:18:29 PM

Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2015, 04:12:07 PM
shocking isn't it?  It only took ten years for the country to become a daily blood bath after the ban on assualt weapons was ended.

Didn't our gun advocates here on MJ call the rest of us liberal moonbeam idiots for predicting this would happen? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Do you realize that the guns outlawed under the AWB functioned the same as the complaint version of those same guns?  The AWB was nothing more than a feel good measure.  You could still legally buy an AK pattern rifle that would accept a 30 round magazine.  The only the the AWB outlawed that may have some sort of tactical advantage was folding stocks.  You should rad up on what that ban actually banned before blabbering about it preventing bloodbaths.... it didn't.

ah.  the law slowed down the incidences, and then immediately after the law expired (thanks to your fellow travellers) the rate of mass shootings began shooting up in geometric proportions.

But the two things are not related to each other, and I need to read up on stuff before i post these inconvenient numbers.

Sounds reasonable.

Ok, let's see it.  I'd love to hear your analysis of the ban and how it prevented mass murderers from buying high capacity semi automatic rifles (hint, it didn't).    I know you have your agenda, which is fine, but in this case you're wrong.  The guns legal before, during, and after the ban all functioned the same.  Just a few minutes of reading the Wikipedia article you lined would reveal that.  So it wasn't the guns themselves that prevented anything.  There a number of huge developments in that 10 year period that came about and profoundly changed our society.  Maybe those had something to do with it?  I do know one thing, the physical properties of the firearms that were banned had nothing to do with it, the guns were functionally the same the whole time.

you  mean other than the actual numbers, right?

Let's see em. 

Or, just explain to me how banning these features causes a downturn is mass shootings:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher mount

The following guns are compliant with the 1994 AWB.  These were available for purchase the entire time the AWB was in place, along with any capacity magazine you wanted.  Hopefully these images will convey better than I can in words that the AWB had no teeth and in fact didn't ban "assault weapons":







Now, I want to know how you think the AWB actually caused a downturn in mass shootings.  I'm not overly concerned about the numbers, they aren't conclusive one way or the other.  I want to know how YOU think that those features that were banned would prevent anyone from going on a shooting spree.  Tell me, please.

yawn.  the numbers.  but hey, keep shilling for the manufacturers.  they need the money.

Ah, typical response from you.  Still no answers to my questions.  Troll on!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 04, 2015, 10:41:28 AM


Feel free to post a pic and offer an opinion  ;)

If you go back a few pages, you might see where I mentioned it appears to be religious terrorism.

Thanks Adam... my query/observation is not really directed at you... but the contrast between the thread is simply amazing...

Although the specifics appear to be vague at the moment, it appears that religious extremism is a factor (if not the sole factor, certainly a contributory one). It might've helped if the shooters had left a manifesto or a note or something - but unless the cops aren't telling us, there doesn't appear to be one.

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 10:51:50 AM
Here is the picture of one of the gun users.  Part of the problem Adam is that the wrong syed farook was originally identified.  (there are apparently two Syed R Farooks in the county). Media ran photos of the wrong guy and published his address.  So people have been gun shy for the past couple of days about posting photos until they are sure they have the right one.

http://wonkette.com/596591/daily-beast-finds-terroristy-name-in-phone-book-solves-san-bernardino-case

(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5660cb5d170000ed00e1b1f9.jpeg?cache=pydmkcuamk)
Syed Farook

Burguan said a San Bernardino officer was shot in the leg by one of the suspects and is expected to be released from the hospital Thursday. A sheriff's deputy sustained cuts on his leg and is expected to recover.

Inland Regional Center is a nonprofit, private community center for people with developmental disabilities. It has nearly 670 staff members and provides services to over 31,000 people, according to the center's website.

The building that houses the center is also used as an event space. On the day of the shooting, the San Bernardino County's public health department was holding an award ceremony there. Co-workers told the LA Times that Farook, a health inspector, left the party just before a group photo was taken.

Police said there was no indication his job was in jeopardy.

Two health department workers who hid in a restroom when the shooting broke out told the LA Times that Farook was a quiet and polite man. They were surprised that he was the attacker.

The shooting was deadliest in America since the 2012 attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

I believe the other guy was the brother of the shooter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-brother-of-gunman-wrongly-identified-as-shooter-is-in-fact-a-navy-veteran-a6760036.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-brother-of-gunman-wrongly-identified-as-shooter-is-in-fact-a-navy-veteran-a6760036.html)

Now they're apparently saying the woman "pledged allegiance to IS" before the shootings:

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

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 11:09:31 AM
kindof.  it was on a Facebook page under a different name with no common known isis members on the friendlist.

I'm assuming the investigators have pretty good reason to believe it was her page.

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 11:16:28 AM

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 11:13:09 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 11:09:31 AM
kindof.  it was on a Facebook page under a different name with no common known isis members on the friendlist.

I'm assuming the investigators have pretty good reason to believe it was her page.

As would I.  The term they are using about it now is that these two didn't have direct contact with ISIS but were 'self radicalized'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-bernardino-shooter-isis-cnn-2015-12

QuoteThe female shooter in the San Bernardino, California, attack earlier this week reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the attack was unfolding, three unnamed officials told CNN.

The post was apparently written on Facebook under a different name, according to CNN's sources.

Investigators still have not determined a conclusive motive for the Wednesday attack on the Inland Regional Center, a county facility that provides services to the disabled.

Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old US citizen, and Tashfeen Malik, his 27-year-old wife, killed 14 people in the shooting and injured at least 21 others. They died in a shootout with police.

Investigators believe the attack was likely inspired by ISIS (also known as ISIL and the Islamic State), but not ordered by or coordinated directly with the terrorist group, according to CNN. The news network's sources did not explain how Malik wrote the Facebook post in support of Baghdadi.

One law-enforcement official told CNN that the attackers look to have been "self-radicalized." Another source said the investigation is focusing on a workplace issue about religion more than the apparent ISIS connection.

Malik moved to California with Farook in 2014 and was living in the US under a K-1 visa with a Pakistani passport, said David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles bureau.

CNN and other news outlets reported Thursday that Farook was in touch with extremists who were being investigated by the FBI for terrorism links. Local police officials said at a press conference on Thursday that Farook was not on their radar for terrorism.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I bet the Colorado shooter was self-radicalized as well.

Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2015, 11:01:54 AM
acme.  you still haven't overcome the elephant sitting on the chest of your argument.

You argued that the cancellation of the assault weapons ban would not result in more shootings. you were wrong.  This isn't theory, its numbers.

You can't get past that so you are literally inventing anything and everything you have to to avoid facing that fact.

The story of the policies which you support is being written in the blood of children and innocent people all across this country.

And here you are again, after yet another mass shooting, with the names of the dead being released this morning, and what are you doing?

Defending the dead?

No.

You are defending the guns.

The numbers you still haven't produced?

Stephen,

That article you posted from the DailyBeast reads like the script of a movie I enjoyed....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137363/

Smith and Wesson stock is up 97% year to date.  Seems like people like their guns.

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 04:27:57 PM
why do people think banning guns will stop them?

Because that is the experience in other civilized countries. What is it about the USA that makes you so certain that what works in other democracies won't work here?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 04, 2015, 10:29:16 AM

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 10:25:30 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 03, 2015, 08:10:19 PM
... this is in reference to firearm registration... it is such a good solution then certainly you should be open to other registration drives... you know cause they got nothing to hide right?

What do you have to hide when you register your automobile?  What are young men hiding when they register for the draft?  Your argument is specious.

Which Article is Freedom to Drive again?  I would support that amendment if it was proposed...

You conveniently ignore the part of the 2nd Amendment that says "well-regulated".

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 02:48:27 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 04:27:57 PM
why do people think banning guns will stop them?

Because that is the experience in other civilized countries. What is it about the USA that makes you so certain that what works in other democracies won't work here?

Please, cite the country with a gun ban where they don't have mass shootings and or killings. I'd love to hear of it.

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 03:45:51 PM
Please, cite the country with a gun ban where they don't have mass shootings and or killings. I'd love to hear of it.

Right, because if you can't eliminate something 100%, it's a failure.

How moronic.

Please stop using Australia as an example for gun control.

There were more than double the amount of Arrest Related Deaths (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf) by our own police force (497) ruled as homicide by the police than there were gun related deaths by the Entire Population (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia) of the continent of Australia (226).  This was in 2009.

Just stop the comparison.  It's senseless.

It's not the laws that are killing people, it's the culture.

Australia's gun violence was already trending down before their ban.

Also looks like this is another case of that religion of peace going a tad haywire.

It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
How moronic.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 05:36:09 PM
It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

And people who would rather name call than give facts. Congress is coming to solve all your problems!!! Sit tight!

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 06:16:06 PM

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
How moronic.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 05:36:09 PM
It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

And people who would rather name call than give facts. Congress is coming to solve all your problems!!! Sit tight!

Congress isn't going to solve anything, because the system is broken and you people are so fucking arrogant and clueless that you'd rather self-destruct than ever admit you're wrong.

As far as the "rather name call than give facts" I did both. It is a fact that I am losing the ability to keep up with all the bigots (both name calling and fact) on this forum.

And the Jaguars suck.

Nothing is broken Adam...it is working as it is supposed to. Your dissatisfaction with the outcome is not an indication of a broken anything.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 06:23:32 PM

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 06:16:06 PM

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
How moronic.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 05:36:09 PM
It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

And people who would rather name call than give facts. Congress is coming to solve all your problems!!! Sit tight!

Congress isn't going to solve anything, because the system is broken and you people are so fucking arrogant and clueless that you'd rather self-destruct than ever admit you're wrong.

As far as the "rather name call than give facts" I did both. It is a fact that I am losing the ability to keep up with all the bigots (both name calling and fact) on this forum.

And the Jaguars suck.

LOL, the Jaguars are in the playoff hunt actually. But as facts escape you, we'll stay on topic.

Adam, I don't know you, but it seems like you have some growing up to do. Resorting to name calling, cursing and just off topic insults hurt the credibility of your case.

Of course, you could just be an Internet troll, which is what I prefer to believe. But in the case that you aren't I thought I would offer up that friendly advice.

Smile more!

Watching from the sidelines. Seems no one has noticed that guns of ANY kind are illegal in California State office buildings.

Foreign military soldiers assigned to spreading death and terror in America won't give a damn.

I'm just happy they sucked at shooting.  120 shots fired and only killed 14

Stephen I agree completely. Bigotry should stop, but so should the name calling. In this PC day and age, it's really considered bullying.
It's a bad time to be Muslim, akin to being Japanese years ago. We need to blame these awful things on the individual, not the religion or guns.

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 09:42:36 PM
Stephen I agree completely. Bigotry should stop, but so should the name calling. In this PC day and age, it's really considered bullying.
It's a bad time to be Muslim, akin to being Japanese years ago. We need to blame these awful things on the individual, not the religion or guns.

...which is why I made a comment about bigotry. A particular poster made a comment about the "religion of peace". Here we go again - tarring an entire people with the same brush because of the actions of a few.

I am blaming these awful things on a couple of individuals who were able to get guns because America is crazy and doesn't seem to appreciate that guns are a serious problem.

Quote from: Apache on December 05, 2015, 12:26:41 AM
Did someone specifically say something about Muslims? I missed it. Or was it indirect, as Adam was in his tirade towards "some" other poster?

See the response above. Making references to the "religion of peace" is certainly a way to imply that Islam is bad and that this incident was a result of that.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 04, 2015, 08:12:08 PM
Nothing is broken Adam...it is working as it is supposed to. Your dissatisfaction with the outcome is not an indication of a broken anything.

I disagree. The system is broken when special interests are able to use their economic power to influence the decision of government in spite of the will of the electorate. The system is broken. The system is rigged. The USA is not democratic anymore. It might have the trappings, but it doesn't actually function that way.

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 06:16:06 PM

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
How moronic.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 05:36:09 PM
It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

And people who would rather name call than give facts. Congress is coming to solve all your problems!!! Sit tight!

I already gave you the facts:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

And nobody called you a name; I said the idea that if you can't get killings down to zero then you shouldn't do anything at all is moronic.  Which it is.

Quote from: stephendare on December 05, 2015, 11:51:39 AM

Quote from: finehoe on December 05, 2015, 08:32:41 AM

Quote from: coredumped on December 04, 2015, 06:16:06 PM

Quote from: finehoe on December 04, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
How moronic.

Quote from: Adam White on December 04, 2015, 05:36:09 PM
It's starting to get difficult to keep track of all the bigots on this forum.

And people who would rather name call than give facts. Congress is coming to solve all your problems!!! Sit tight!

I already gave you the facts:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

And nobody called you a name; I said the idea that if you can't get killings down to zero then you shouldn't do anything at all is moronic.  Which it is.

wow.  its us, brazil, mexico, and columbia.  Well we've got distinguished company.

Something is clearly wrong. Everyone who owns a gun is a law-abiding gun owner until he isn't. And then it's too late.

The problem with the liberal's logic concerning gun rights is very naive, thinking that we all are 'the same' and we are gonna 'do the right thing' and live within this utopian society all singing kumbaya. I have some breaking news for you libs, there are wackos out there that are ready to commit mass shootings. You can enforce all of the gun bans that you want, and it will have zero effect on determined sickos. Taking guns away from responsible people is not the answer. This isn't political, this is common sense.

Quote from: I-10east on December 05, 2015, 11:51:04 PM
The problem with the liberal's logic concerning gun rights is very naive, thinking that we all are 'the same' and we are gonna 'do the right thing' and live within this utopian society all singing kumbaya. I have some breaking news for you libs, there are wackos out there that are ready to commit mass shootings. You can enforce all of the gun bans that you want, and it will have zero effect on determined sickos. Taking guns away from responsible people is not the answer. This isn't political, this is common sense.

I can't speak for the liberals on this forum, but I don't think that's what they are saying.

Quote from: stephendare on December 06, 2015, 01:32:38 AM
What is naïve is thinking that if you are in every person in America fewer people will be shot to death. The evidence has shown us, the numbers are proven this, and yet people are so naïve that they believe more of the same will result in less death

People haven't been saved by responsible gun owners? Boy that's news to me... I know that likelihood of 'accidentally shooting an innocent bystander' really holds soooo much weight...

Quote from: Adam White on December 06, 2015, 02:18:44 AM
I can't speak for the liberals on this forum, but I don't think that's what they are saying.

Some liberals on MJ aren't totally anti-gun?? Boy, the breaking news just keeps piling up...

Quote from: I-10east on December 06, 2015, 08:31:57 AM

Quote from: Adam White on December 06, 2015, 02:18:44 AM
I can't speak for the liberals on this forum, but I don't think that's what they are saying.

Some liberals on MJ aren't totally anti-gun?? Boy, the breaking news just keeps piling up...

I don't know about whether there are some liberals who support gun ownership or not. But go back and read your post, because that's not what you said:

The problem with the liberal's logic concerning gun rights is very naive, thinking that we all are 'the same' and we are gonna 'do the right thing' and live within this utopian society all singing kumbaya. I have some breaking news for you libs, there are wackos out there that are ready to commit mass shootings. You can enforce all of the gun bans that you want, and it will have zero effect on determined sickos. Taking guns away from responsible people is not the answer. This isn't political, this is common sense.

Quote from: coredumped on December 03, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
We'e already banned murder, people still do it. Banning guns won't stop it.

NRA DEMANDS REPEAL OF ALL TRAFFIC LAWS, SAYS "LAWS WON'T STOP BAD DRIVERS"

Washington, D.C. – The NRA's Wayne LaPierre is on the offensive following the nation's most recent gun tragedy. This time LaPierre is doubling down on his belief that any kind of gun law is a violation of the second amendment and a step towards a tyrannical Nazi-esque America, regardless of statistical evidence, the opinion of the NRA's own members, his wife, the Pope, his butcher, the American people or plain old common sense.

LaPierre paints a picture that any kind of gun control will result in unarmed, helpless "good guys" being flanked by armed "bad guys." He is ready to apply that same ironclad logic to repealing all traffic laws – age limits on licensing, registration, speed limits, manufacturing safety requirements, seat belts, child seats, traffic lights and standardized signs. "People are going to break the law anyway so we can no longer bother with laws that just impede the right-away of good guys. These restrictive traffic laws, even those designed for safety only oppress the GOOD drivers. Therefore I anticipate a 0% increase in fatalities, in fact, I think these newly liberated good drivers will help keep the bad drivers in check. Especially if they have a gun."

http://thisshouldbethenews.com/2015/10/05/nra-demands-repeal-of-all-traffic-laws-says-laws-wont-stop-bad-drivers/

Interesting Op-ed...  Ignore the title and read it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/liberalisms-gun-problem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

QuoteI DO NOT own guns, and the last time I discharged a firearm was on "Second Amendment Day" at a conservative journalism program many years ago. (Yes, dear reader, that's how conservative journalism programs roll.) My political commitments are more communitarian than libertarian, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to bear every kind of gun or magazine, and I think of myself as modestly persuadable in the gun control debate.

Of course that doesn't mean I really am, since we're all tribal creatures and gun rights advocates are part of my strange and motley right-wing tribe. But at the very least I understand why the idea of strict gun control has such a following, why it seems to many people like the obvious response to mass shootings — whether the perpetrators are ISIS sympathizers, mad right-wingers, or simply mad — and why the sorrowful public piety of Republican politicians after a gun massacre drives liberals into a fury.

That fury, though, needs a little more cool reasoning behind it. It's fine to demand actions, not just prayers, in response to gun violence. But today's liberalism often lacks a clear sense of which actions might actually address the problem – and, just as importantly, a clear appreciation of what those actions might cost.

Sometimes, it's suggested that all we need are modest, "common-sense" changes to gun laws: Tighter background checks, new ways to trace firearms, bans on the deadliest weapons.

This idea was the basis for the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed in 2013 in the Senate. It was also, though, the basis for two major pieces of gun legislation that passed in the 1990s: The Brady Law requiring background checks for handguns and the assault weapons ban.

Both measures were promoted as common-sense reforms — in the case of the Brady Law, by none other than Ronald Reagan. But both failed to have an appreciable impact on homicides — even as other policies, like hiring more police officers, probably did. That double failure, some gun control supporters will tell you, has to do with the loopholes those two laws left open — particularly the fact that individuals selling guns aren't required to run background checks when they sell within their home state.

But that claim's very plausibility points to the problem: With 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, it's very difficult to devise a non-intrusive, "common-sense" approach to regulating their exchange by individuals. Ultimately, you need more than background checks; you need many fewer guns in circulation, period. To their credit, many gun control supporters acknowledge this point, which is why there is a vogue for citing the Australian experience, where a sweeping and mandatory gun buyback followed a 1996 mass shooting.

The clearest evidence shows that Australia's reform mostly reduced suicides — as the Brady law may have done — while the evidence on homicides is murkier. (In general, the evidence linking gun ownership rates to murder rates is relatively weak.) But a lower suicide rate would be a real public health achievement, even if it isn't immediately relevant to the mass shooting debate.

Does that make "getting to Australia" a compelling long-term goal for liberalism? Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost. Absent a total cultural revolution in America, a massive gun collection effort would face significant resistance even once legislative and judicial battles had been won. The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits ... but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.

I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would probably look more like Michael Bloomberg's controversial stop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders' Vermont, authorities would mostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms.

Here the relevant case study is probably not Australia, but France. The French have the kind of strict gun laws that American liberals favor, and they have fewer gun deaths than we do. But their strict gun laws are part of a larger matrix of illiberalism — a mix of Bloombergist police tactics, Trump-like disdain for religious liberty, and campus-left-style restrictions on free speech. (And then France also has a lively black market in weaponry, which determined terrorists unfortunately seem to have little difficulty acquiring.)

Despite their occasional sympathies for Gallic socialism, I don't think American liberals necessarily want to "get to France" in this illiberal sense.

But to be persuasive, rather than just self-righteous, a case for gun control needs to explain why that isn't where we would end up.

It has to stop.  I can picture the body count increasing like the circling numbers on the old analog gas pumps.  Death, death, death...on and on. Something must be done.

I find the arguments unconvincing.

First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

Second, it is said that changing the law won't stop it anyway, so why criminalize ordinary citizens?  So we shouldn't even try?  Even if it reduced the killing by 30%, wouldn't it be worth it?  What if some restrictions saved your brother or niece?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 07, 2015, 09:38:47 AM
Interesting Op-ed...  Ignore the title and read it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/liberalisms-gun-problem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

QuoteI DO NOT own guns, and the last time I discharged a firearm was on "Second Amendment Day" at a conservative journalism program many years ago. (Yes, dear reader, that's how conservative journalism programs roll.) My political commitments are more communitarian than libertarian, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to bear every kind of gun or magazine, and I think of myself as modestly persuadable in the gun control debate.

Of course that doesn't mean I really am, since we're all tribal creatures and gun rights advocates are part of my strange and motley right-wing tribe. But at the very least I understand why the idea of strict gun control has such a following, why it seems to many people like the obvious response to mass shootings — whether the perpetrators are ISIS sympathizers, mad right-wingers, or simply mad — and why the sorrowful public piety of Republican politicians after a gun massacre drives liberals into a fury.

That fury, though, needs a little more cool reasoning behind it. It's fine to demand actions, not just prayers, in response to gun violence. But today's liberalism often lacks a clear sense of which actions might actually address the problem – and, just as importantly, a clear appreciation of what those actions might cost.

Sometimes, it's suggested that all we need are modest, "common-sense" changes to gun laws: Tighter background checks, new ways to trace firearms, bans on the deadliest weapons.

This idea was the basis for the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed in 2013 in the Senate. It was also, though, the basis for two major pieces of gun legislation that passed in the 1990s: The Brady Law requiring background checks for handguns and the assault weapons ban.

Both measures were promoted as common-sense reforms — in the case of the Brady Law, by none other than Ronald Reagan. But both failed to have an appreciable impact on homicides — even as other policies, like hiring more police officers, probably did. That double failure, some gun control supporters will tell you, has to do with the loopholes those two laws left open — particularly the fact that individuals selling guns aren't required to run background checks when they sell within their home state.

But that claim's very plausibility points to the problem: With 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, it's very difficult to devise a non-intrusive, "common-sense" approach to regulating their exchange by individuals. Ultimately, you need more than background checks; you need many fewer guns in circulation, period. To their credit, many gun control supporters acknowledge this point, which is why there is a vogue for citing the Australian experience, where a sweeping and mandatory gun buyback followed a 1996 mass shooting.

The clearest evidence shows that Australia's reform mostly reduced suicides — as the Brady law may have done — while the evidence on homicides is murkier. (In general, the evidence linking gun ownership rates to murder rates is relatively weak.) But a lower suicide rate would be a real public health achievement, even if it isn't immediately relevant to the mass shooting debate.

Does that make "getting to Australia" a compelling long-term goal for liberalism? Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost. Absent a total cultural revolution in America, a massive gun collection effort would face significant resistance even once legislative and judicial battles had been won. The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits ... but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.

I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would probably look more like Michael Bloomberg's controversial stop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders' Vermont, authorities would mostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms.

Here the relevant case study is probably not Australia, but France. The French have the kind of strict gun laws that American liberals favor, and they have fewer gun deaths than we do. But their strict gun laws are part of a larger matrix of illiberalism — a mix of Bloombergist police tactics, Trump-like disdain for religious liberty, and campus-left-style restrictions on free speech. (And then France also has a lively black market in weaponry, which determined terrorists unfortunately seem to have little difficulty acquiring.)

Despite their occasional sympathies for Gallic socialism, I don't think American liberals necessarily want to "get to France" in this illiberal sense.

But to be persuasive, rather than just self-righteous, a case for gun control needs to explain why that isn't where we would end up.

This OpEd seems to say that stopping gun ownership will not stop gun based homicides.

The French model restricts gun ownership, but a "healthy" underground provides adequate supply.

If the US came out with an outright ban, the gun market would go underground with untraceable equipment.

Quote from: spuwho on December 07, 2015, 12:27:27 PM
If the US came out with an outright ban, the gun market would go underground with untraceable equipment.

Just like the drug war, if people want it, they'll get it.

Besides, how will a ban on gun stop home made weapons?

prohibition worked well.

As a matter of fact, I was brewing up a batch of bathtub semi-automatic rifle just the other day.

Quote from: NIMBY on December 07, 2015, 12:00:24 PM


First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

You were kidding of course? Cherry Valley, German Flatts, Wyoming Valley (PA), in the late 1700's were all massacres far worse then the recent terror attack and they used guns, clubs, spears etc to do their killing. In the late 1830's The Mormon Wars led to dozens of family size massacres all across Illionis and Missouri. By 1857 the Mormons wiped out an entire wagon train with guns and bow and arrows. Jump to the 1880's and Tombstone AZ was locked in a bloody vendetta that left bodies in Mexico, AZ and NM. This stuff is going to happen, guns, knives, and spears don't do it, PEOPLE DO!

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 07, 2015, 04:14:06 PM

Quote from: NIMBY on December 07, 2015, 12:00:24 PM


First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

You were kidding of course? Cherry Valley, German Flatts, Wyoming Valley (PA), in the late 1700's were all massacres far worse then the recent terror attack and they used guns, clubs, spears etc to do their killing. In the late 1830's The Mormon Wars led to dozens of family size massacres all across Illionis and Missouri. By 1857 the Mormons wiped out an entire wagon train with guns and bow and arrows. Jump to the 1880's and Tombstone AZ was locked in a bloody vendetta that left bodies in Mexico, AZ and NM. This stuff is going to happen, guns, knives, and spears don't do it, PEOPLE DO!

I think the key word in NIMBY's post was "efficiency" but you seem to have chosen to overlook that. It's a matter of fact that a semi-automatic rifle is more efficient than a bow and arrow. It's not even an issue of semi-automatics -- the Winchester 1873 is known as the "gun that won the west."

The Mongols managed to conquer wide swathes of territory on horseback using swords, knives and bows and arrows. I suspect they wouldn't have been so successful had their potential victims been armed with assault rifles.

Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people.

Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2015, 04:18:58 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 07, 2015, 04:14:06 PM

Quote from: NIMBY on December 07, 2015, 12:00:24 PM


First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

You were kidding of course? Cherry Valley, German Flatts, Wyoming Valley (PA), in the late 1700's were all massacres far worse then the recent terror attack and they used guns, clubs, spears etc to do their killing. In the late 1830's The Mormon Wars led to dozens of family size massacres all across Illionis and Missouri. By 1857 the Mormons wiped out an entire wagon train with guns and bow and arrows. Jump to the 1880's and Tombstone AZ was locked in a bloody vendetta that left bodies in Mexico, AZ and NM. This stuff is going to happen, guns, knives, and spears don't do it, PEOPLE DO!

So then you are saying that guns aren't even necessary at all, right?  I never pegged you as a total gun confiscator, Ock.

LOL. Ock is right in that if one wants to kill they will do so by any means necessary, even with a garden hoe. Guns merely expedite the persons desire.

Someone at work came to me today and said, "we have lots of constitutional rights to kill someone on demand...the courts have been affirming it for years...."

Quote from: spuwho on December 07, 2015, 04:47:38 PM
LOL. Ock is right in that if one wants to kill they will do so by any means necessary, even with a garden hoe. Guns merely expedite the persons desire.

Someone at work came to me today and said, "we have lots of constitutional rights to kill someone on demand...the courts have been affirming it for years...."

Yep, and that's what most people on this board still fail to comprehend, murder will continue with or without a gun ban. And no, it won't slow either.

Perhaps I could appeal to the anti-gun folk with this thought - do you feel that we should be out armed by the police? That is, are you in favor of the militarization of the police, or do you think it's important we have the same weapons as them, as the constitution intended?

Quote from: Adam White on December 07, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
I think the key word in NIMBY's post was "efficiency...

Well....

QuoteThey fired 65 to 75 rounds, police said, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 21.

What's the saying?  5.36 shots; 1 kill.

Obviously a model of efficiency.

Stephen, you totally lost me man. I was asking about the consequences of gun control (police, etc) I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'm sorry you missed my point. My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.
My honest question was about the reason behind the second ammendment and police brutality.
And still, no one has addressed that guns can be made at home with a 3D printer, what now?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 07, 2015, 06:23:55 PM

Quote from: Adam White on December 07, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
I think the key word in NIMBY's post was "efficiency...

Well....

QuoteThey fired 65 to 75 rounds, police said, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 21.

What's the saying?  5.36 shots; 1 kill.

Obviously a model of efficiency.

efficiency of delivery. but you know that. we're not talking about aim - that's a different story.

Quote from: coredumped on December 07, 2015, 08:19:25 PM
I'm sorry you missed my point. My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

I have yet to hear ANYONE make that contention.

Quote from: coredumped on December 07, 2015, 08:19:25 PM
My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

So we've returned to the moronic assertion that unless you can reduce it to zero, it isn't worth doing at all.

Quote from: finehoe on December 08, 2015, 10:34:06 AM

Quote from: coredumped on December 07, 2015, 08:19:25 PM
My premise is that many folks on here think banning guns will stop murder, it won't, and hasn't anywhere on earth.

So we've returned to the moronic assertion that unless you can reduce it to zero, it isn't worth doing at all.

No (but thanks for the name calling, again, stay classy). I'm saying that we shouldn't lose rights because people are insane. People drink and drive, we don't ban cars, people shoot people, and there's talk of gun bans.

At any rate, this thread has degraded to name calling, very poor comprehension of the English language, and an inability to answer simple questions. I'm all for all for a healthy debate and welcome opposing views, but this thread has deviated far from anything remotely close to that. So I won't be partaking in it anymore.

Enjoy your debating folks & see I'll you in the other, more productive threads! :D :D

i'll debate a bit with you if you'd like.  The stabbing at Basel provides good context for such.

I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

Quote from: AKIRA on December 08, 2015, 10:12:40 PM
I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

So was Stephen. This illustrates the value of the sarcasm font.

Quote from: AKIRA on December 08, 2015, 06:25:43 PM
i'll debate a bit with you if you'd like.  The stabbing at Basel provides good context for such.

We had a stabbing - being labeled a terrorist incident - at Leytonstone Underground station the other day. A guy was able to (non-fatally) stab one person. Had he been armed with a gun, he likely would've been able to kill multiple people.

Quote from: Adam White on December 09, 2015, 01:40:18 AM

Quote from: AKIRA on December 08, 2015, 10:12:40 PM
I'm refering to the stabbing at Art Basel Miami.  One person with an design scalpel cutting one person.  Harsh scene for the artsy jet set.

So was Stephen. This illustrates the value of the sarcasm font.

How fortunate to have the services of a sarcasm translator...............................................

Quote from: NIMBY on December 07, 2015, 12:00:24 PM
It has to stop.  I can picture the body count increasing like the circling numbers on the old analog gas pumps.  Death, death, death...on and on. Something must be done.

I find the arguments unconvincing.

First, that there is a perceived right in the constitution?  I don't think the founders could have imagined the efficiency with which the killing is occurring in 2015.  Doesn't someone's right to not be killed supersede it?

Second, it is said that changing the law won't stop it anyway, so why criminalize ordinary citizens?  So we shouldn't even try?  Even if it reduced the killing by 30%, wouldn't it be worth it?  What if some restrictions saved your brother or niece?

My bad, posted in the wrong thread.  Can someone point me to the abortion thread?

Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 10:51:51 AM
so you just wanted to make an anti abortion statement?  And when no one responded to your post you had to figure out how to respond to it yourself?

Just saw your response.  I didn't just want to make an anti-abortion statement, as I can do that anytime.  I wanted to challenge readers sympathetic to the arguments for gun control (out of love for their fellow man) to apply some of that logic to abortion (out of love for their fellow unborn man). Did I change anyone's mind?  I hope so, but I doubt it.  Most people are entrenched on both of these issues even though they can be ideologically inconsistent regarding the basic issues: life, death, freedom, regulation, maybe even love.

I did get a few responses to my post, but I clearly missed the peak of the discussion (oh well).  I avoided this thread for several days because I pretty much knew how it would go.  When I got caught up, I posted. I responded to myself for logistical reasons so that someone could read my original post easily. I had always planned to do that and didn't need to "figure out how to" do it.