Active shooter, San Bernardino CA. Multiple fatalities.

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by bosstones

To be fair, that is predominantly in only certain parts of the city not frequented by most or tourists.

LOL well then I guess that makes it ok.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Automatic fire mode isn't allowed on civilian versions of weapons

Pssst...class III and pre-86 samples.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Delta0311

LOL well then I guess that makes it ok.

Just mentioning it since some folks hear/read the stats on Chicago and think that all of the city or Cook County is a war zone.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by C5driver

Pssst...class III and pre-86 samples.

Referring to the new AR-15's and other semi-auto rifles that civilians can buy over the counter.

Thank you for noting the exceptions though.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Thank you for noting the exceptions though.

The exceptions that never harmed anyone, except maybe by accident.

[MrPrena]

Antis will argue pre-86 will commit a crime now.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Antis will argue pre-86 will commit a crime now.

Shhhhhhh

[imserious]

Back to the actual story, from the New York Times...

"WASHINGTON — The woman who, with her husband, killed 14 people in San Bernardino pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a Facebook post the day of the attack, officials said Friday, and the F.B.I. announced it was treating the massacre as an act of terrorism.

“The investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers, and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations,” the F.B.I. director, James Comey, said at a news conference here. But, he said: “so far we have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger group, or form part of a cell. There’s no indication that they are part of a network.”...

In recent months, the F.B.I. has been particularly concerned that so-called homegrown extremists might be inspired by the Islamic State to stage attacks in the United States, law enforcement officials say. Even before the attacks in Paris last month, the agency had heavy surveillance on at least three dozen individuals who the authorities were concerned might commit violence in the group’s name.

The F.B.I. refocused its efforts on these individuals earlier this year in response to a shift in tactics by the Islamic State, law enforcement officials said. Instead of trying to persuade Americans to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, the group began calling on its sympathizers and followers in the United States to commit acts of violence at home.

“We’ve especially focused on the portfolio of people we’re investigating for the potential of being homegrown violent extremists,” the F.B.I. director, Mr. Comey, said last month at a news conference."

This is bad news indeed.

NPR ran a story about how terrorist groups are using radicalized women to essentially lure or keep men radicalized. A different kind of mail order bride where you are the one actually getting screwed. Twisted, but frankly kind of brilliant. It's possible that is what happened here.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Does Australia, Canada, UK, Western Europe really have a crime/cartel problem of the same magnitude and severity as the US? I've been to a few different parts of Europe. I know they have their own version of the ghetto. But I've never read or heard anything that would suggest their crime problems are anywhere close to those of the US. The cartels alone are running a $64 billion drug industry. Does anything in Europe even come close to that?

Crime rates in Canada are generally the same as the USA (maybe slightly lower...)

The only major difference is in homicides by guns (even other forms of homicide are close enough). you just have many more gun deaths.

Obviously access to guns exacerbates the US crime issue, but with the black market and extensive smuggling network, a national ban on most so called 'dangerous' firearms will leave criminal access mostly unaffected.

Well, not quite because capitalism. Black market or not, restricting supply will boost price. The 'black market' / illegal gun that costs me $400 in Atlanta costs $2,000 in Toronto and $10,000 in Australia. Some gang bangers will buy them but fewer, meaning fewer gun deaths.

Most types of drugs are severely restricted or explicitly outlawed here in the US, and yet that doesn't stop millions of pounds of drugs from making its way into the US. Why would firearms be any different?

Again, nobody is saying gun control stops all gun deaths. But it reduces them - significantly. Yes, guns will be smuggled in and some will have them but there will be fewer and, thus, fewer deaths of innocent people.

I don't think a firearms ban or severe restriction would affect criminals' ability to get and use them; the nation-wide Assault Weapons Ban had a negligible affect on gun crime and we've already discussed the obvious loopholes with the extensive smuggling and blackmarket that exists here in the US.

Again, capitalism and economics and supply and demand and so on.

But for the sake of argument, let's say a piece of firearms legislation somehow magically made all 'dangerous' firearms unattainable, for law-abiding and criminal citizens. What is the response when someone starts making improvised explosives, or the gangs resort to stabbing, or someone hijacks and crashes a plane, or drives a car into a crowd of people? If you ban one tool used to kill, what is the response when someone transitions to using another tool to accomplish the same objective?

Well it isn't like there are a lot of 'good guys' who actually do anything to stop the 'bad guys' these days. It is a nice myth, but a myth all the same. No mass shootings are stopped by good guys. So this is a bit of a ficticious counterfactual.

Look, 6,000 years of recorded human history tells us there will be violence and, yes, there will be murders. Restricting and controlling access to tools that are designed only to kill (both by limiting the options for tools and effecting real control on those tools that are allowed) will reduce deaths. Sure, stabbings will happened, but if the 2 in San Bernadino had knives, not guns, you would have 3 dead not 14. This is all about limiting innocent death, not preventing. The latter is impossible the former very possibly (as evidenced by every other developed democracy)

The fallacy, from the other perspective, is that banning a certain type of firearm, or even all firearms, simply targets a tool, instead of targeting the true cause of these acts of violence. It also preemptively precludes all law-abiding citizens from having these tools, regardless of whether their intentions were good or not. If you ban one tool, the wrong-doers will simply find another.

Again, nobody is talking banning all guns but no other tool is as sole-purposed and effective at killing than guns.

And, look, you do control all sorts of other tools. You don't let citizens buy rocket launchers and RPGs etc. It isn't a question of 'can we' it is a question of the lack of will to act further.

As for the weapons restrictions that already exist here in the US, I agree there are many. In fact, to suggest that the US doesn't have strict gun control is pretty ridiculous. Considering the federal background checks for all dealer purchases, pistol permitting required by many states (pistols not "assault weapons" cause the most gun deaths in this country), magazine and carrying restrictions across many states. The biggest loophole that needs to be addressed are the private sales which don't require any background checking.

The US has very poor gun control by developed country standards. They are too easy to get and the idea you can carry them (concealed or, worse, openly in some places) is very, very poor gun control.

In Canada, I can get a gun. But the process is longer and harder. And when I get it, I don't get to carry it around on me or in my car for shits and giggles. I can take it hunting, I can take it to the range and, if I store it at home, it has to stay properly secured at all times (locker, not bedside table).

RPG's, machineguns, rockets, ect. are crew-served weapons, not intended for individual use or self-defense, even in the military. Automatic fire mode isn't allowed on civilian versions of weapons, but that aside all the small arms owned/used by civilians (think shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, semi-auto rifles, pistols) are functionally the same as the military versions. The 2nd Amendment made reference to "arms" not artillery, bombs or field guns. The intent was to have a civilian population that had access to the same firearms that the average soldier would've carried. Back then, that meant muskets. Today, that means shotguns, rifles and pistols.

The Pentagon spent about $660 billion last year. Sorry, but no matter how many members the NRA has and how many guns they buy you are not in a position to 'fight' your military, no matter how many good movies Hollywood makes showing that sort of thing.....

[Fundguy1]

Their guns were illegal. They broke gun laws with them. They were terrorists. More gun Laws wouldn't have stopped them. Gun laws don't stop Mexican drug cartels from having guns. They didn't stop the Paris attacks. Allowing law abiding people to carry guns will allow these people to protect themselves and others around them. Unfortunately for these poor people, they lived in California and weren't given that option.

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Their guns were illegal. They broke gun laws with them. They were terrorists. More gun Laws wouldn't have stopped them. Gun laws don't stop Mexican drug cartels from having guns. They didn't stop the Paris attacks. Allowing law abiding people to carry guns will allow these people to protect themselves and others around them. Unfortunately for these poor people, they lived in California and weren't given that option.

Laws won't stop someone who has declared war on you and will do everything in their power to kill you. Liberals seem to be unable to understand that. Maybe their "safe space" will shield them from bullets?

[Fundguy1]

And par the course, Obama won't say it's terrorism. FBI director will. Doesn't fit his narrative or legacy. Refugees, isis contained, terrorism caused by cow farts, gun laws stopping this stuff. All of these are shown to be flawed by this incident.

I find it insulting to the victims, their families and the average Americans intelligence that He and Hillary and other democrats are trying to use this to increase gun laws. Sad.

[EALm4]

I direct your attention to this: How to handle a terrorist

You dont hear this kind of voice and passion out of the WH anymore

[mgcyr]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Their guns were illegal. They broke gun laws with them. They were terrorists. More gun Laws wouldn't have stopped them. Gun laws don't stop Mexican drug cartels from having guns. They didn't stop the Paris attacks. Allowing law abiding people to carry guns will allow these people to protect themselves and others around them. Unfortunately for these poor people, they lived in California and weren't given that option.

Do you truly believe that tougher gun laws, reducing the number of guns in circulation, will have no effect on gun violence? I don't read very many stories (there are one or two, but very few) about a citizen legally carrying a firearm preventing a mass shooting, or any shooting for that matter.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by mgcyr

Do you truly believe that tougher gun laws, reducing the number of guns in circulation, will have no effect on gun violence? I don't read very many stories (there are one or two, but very few) about a citizen legally carrying a firearm preventing a mass shooting, or any shooting for that matter.

Absolutely without question. Proof is in the states with strictest gun laws having highest gun crime, and gun and violent crime dropping dramatically in states that have introduced carry laws.

I don't mind harsher laws for gun crime, but not ones for gun ownership and carry. Better reporting of mental illness would also have prevented most of the mass shootings.
The reason you don't see the countless crimes foiled by carry permit holders is they aren't news worthy. Who cares if a bad guy gets locked up or rape stopped or burglary foiled because a good guy had a gun? Only the mass killings, or potentially mass killings I should say, even make the local news. Why?
1. There isn't mass death. Blood sells.
2. They don't fit the narrative of the left

Majority of mass shootings are by mentally defective people. Psychiatristshave long resisted reporting these illnesses because they worry people won't seek help. Reality is it allows crazies to get guns and do these crimes. It should be a crime not to report them. There should be a database like do not fly for them called no guns. If you try to buy a gun and you're on the database, you don't get one. If you reside at the same location as someone on the database, no gun . Easy.

Please don't make me pull up endless charts showing what I just stated. Gun laws only prevent upstanding citizens who know they are the first line of defense for themselves and their families from having a chance to survive a crime. Cops are the clean up crew and the ones that get the guys after the commit the crime, if they can, so another isn't committed. They don't protect you during a crime.

And criminals don't care about laws. Do you think it's a coincidence all these mass shootings are in gun free zones? They know they won't meet resistance. Gun free zones should be required to have armed security to compensate by law.

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by mgcyr

Do you truly believe that tougher gun laws, reducing the number of guns in circulation, will have no effect on gun violence? I don't read very many stories (there are one or two, but very few) about a citizen legally carrying a firearm preventing a mass shooting, or any shooting for that matter.

There are tons of story's research the shit. Ca is one of the hardest places outside New York to buy a gun legally, the law isn't the issue the people are. I think with this tragedy more business/institutions will hire armed security. Won't stop people, but definitely slow them down, and or think twice.

[mgcyr]

Originally Posted by kprocivic

There are tons of story's research the shit. Ca is one of the hardest places outside New York to buy a gun legally, the law isn't the issue the people are. I think with this tragedy more business/institutions will hire armed security. Won't stop people, but definitely slow them down, and or think twice.

Yes, but given that the gun laws don't appear to be federal, that's like blocking one hole in a sink with 50 holes and wondering why it's still leaking. You can obviously get a gun and travel with it state to state. If the laws across the country were the same in every state as it is in NY for example, there would certainly be a difference.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by mgcyr

Yes, but given that the gun laws don't appear to be federal, that's like blocking one hole in a sink with 50 holes and wondering why it's still leaking. You can obviously get a gun and travel with it state to state. If the laws across the country were the same in every state as it is in NY for example, there would certainly be a difference.

Nope. Mexico bans guns. France bans guns. Doesn't matter. And criminals don't go to the trouble of crossing statell lines to buy a gun. They just get an illegal one off the street. There's more guns than people already in the us so preventing more is a moot point. Even confiscating them didn't work in Aussie. It's just a silly utopia the gun detractors live in. Sane as socialism or pc safe zones on campus. Great in theory. Ridiculous in the real world.

[1MOREMOD]

Yes better not try and just battle on an forum instead.

[Fundguy1]

My gun experiences
1. In college in NJ, I was away at home for Christmas. My neighbor below me was a K9 cop, Korean War vet, and to get to my door you had to walk past his K9 police SUV parked 10 feet away. In the middle of the night he woke up and found a 13 yr old trying to break into my apartment. When he was confronted, the kid whipped out a 357. Cop disarmed him before he could shoot only because he was standing next to him as he drew. Cop said this is a normal daily activity. At the same time if I wanted to get a gun it was 3 months time, required permission from my police chief, 3 people writing up psych reports saying I was sane, stating why I wanted it, etc. Endless. I do all this I could buy 1 gun.

2 I was in Newark NJ standing on the street next to my buddies fraternity house with 6 guys. A guy pulled up in a car and said hey guys. I got something to sell. Anyone interested? He went into his trunk and showed us 6 cases. Each case contained a full auto Israeli army uzi with silencer and numbers shaved off. He wanted $1,000 cash each. They were brought in from israel, not another state. Had other toys too.
3. My exes brother in law was just back from serving in the army. He was standing in a McDonald's parking lot eating his first big Mac in years and saw two guys do a drug deal in the back of the lot. They saw him and pulled a gun on him. He was too close to run but he ducked behind his car instead. If he had been carrying he could have defended himself. Instead the criminal walked over calmly and executed him
4 my friends in laws had 2 guys break and enter. They were in their 70s. The husband tried to stop them with a baseball bat. He was shot and killed. Wife was raped to death. If he had had a shotgun they would probably be alive and the perps dead instead of the other way around
5 my friends father heard someone climbing over his backyard fence in the middle of the night. He met him as he came across his yard by racking the bolt of his m1 carbine. The guy, black, threw up his hands and said "don't shoot me boss! Don't shoot me boss! I ain't got no gun! I ain't even got a hatchet!" They he jumped back over the fence.

All these personal experiences show its better to have than have not. Criminals don't care about laws. Cops don't protect you. You need to be responsible to protect yourself and your loved ones. The only sure way to do this is with a gun and proper training.

[ASBSECU E93]

Gun laws only punish law abiding citizens who choose to own and maintain firearms - as per their legal right.

Criminals are not law abiding citizens....hence, they are referred to as criminals...and do not obey or adhere to the law.

In this instance - 3 people, acting in secret and following a radical agenda, perpetrated a mass shooting of innocent people.

If a person is willing to trade their life for another through violent means, it is impossible to prevent an act of violence.

Law enforcement disclosed they had a several pipe bombs as well - I guess the fact these are illegal prevented....oh, wait. They actually had pipe bombs...

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by mgcyr

Do you truly believe that tougher gun laws, reducing the number of guns in circulation, will have no effect on gun violence?

Not at all. Zero guns in circulation = zero or statistically zero gun deaths.

As for tougher gun laws in order to reduce gun violence...How does that work for drunk driving, illegal drugs?

Do you believe then that a death penalty will reduce the murders of peace officers?

Originally Posted by mgcyr

I don't read very many stories (there are one or two, but very few) about a citizen legally carrying a firearm preventing a mass shooting, or any shooting for that matter.

This is a fallacy. You are basing a conclusion or thought based on a perceived absence of evidence. There's actually quite a few instances, and they've been posted on BP before. I'm just not in a frame of mind to do research, but it's out there.