Active Shooting in San Bernardino, California

[BonzaiDuck]

The question I really want to know is did he get radicalized when he went overseas into Pakistan/ Saudi Arabia? And how did he manage to gather that big an arsenal without getting on the government radar.

So far, the latest I'd heard in the last hour -- He had communicated with terrorists who were already on the FBI radar.

I don't like the idea of NSA being able to access a complete record of my phone or internet accesses from a zillion disks stored in some . . facilities.

But if it's initially just a match of meta-data, I'll say this. Americans should have known (as I did) ten or more years ago that NSA had these capabilities. BBC had aired a documentary on the extant NSA system known as ECHELON back around '98 or '99. Bamford published his "Body of Secrets" as sequel to an earlier work -- "The Puzzle Palace." If you ever liked Redford, Poitier or Dan Ackroyd, you might have seen the fictional comic-suspense movie "Sneakers."

The issue had been -- instead -- the potential for abuse. But there are few or no cases of NSA abuse.

Why would they announce this from the FBI now? And would they have caught Farook and Marik if NSA hadn't stopped its mining of meta-data weeks or months ago? Because that's what I think may have happened, unless I've got it wrong.

 

[Blackjack200]

Hey, if we can easily get rid of the 300 million guns in America, it should be a snap to deport the 15 million illegal aliens as well, right?

Neither one is practical or realistically going to happen.

Guns > Dead children. Glad you agree.

 

[Blackjack200]

Do you acknowledge then that the USA has unique demographic considerations that don't apply to the rest of the world? Of course, in all fairness we also have much more strict punishments for certain kinds of crime (e.g. drug dealing) which incentivizes the use of deadly force to escape arrest.

Just say what you want to say. We have lots of angry, violent, scary black people here.

Okay, that only bolsters the argument for gun control. Unless you think violent crime gets less violent when you add guns in.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Yes, WE make that choice every other November. Your "facts on the ground" make no sense. Harder access guns --> less gun violence --> fewer mass shooting --> less dead children.

Or explain every other country on earth with a functioning and effective government that restricts gun ownership and does not have these problems.

It is a choice. We choose guns over the lives of children. Live with it.



I know I'm not changing any hearts and minds. But wringing your hands and saying "there's nothing we can do!" is asinine and insulting. It's like Jenny McCarthy wringing her hands as Measles Mumps and Rubella outbreaks run rampant saying "If only there were something we could do!!!"



Zero evidence for that.

Please explain how you plan on making millions of guns disappear? Also, please explain how you plan on keeping criminals from illegally obtaining guns since right now, it is illegal for them to do so? Also, please explain how you would prevent law abiding citizens who will have no problems obtaining a gun now and after 'stricter' gun controls from having mental health issues so that they don't end up turning the guns against other people like most of the mass shootings that happen now?

Screaming about more 'gun control' may make you sound like you are putting on some righteous fight but you have no realistic plan that tramples on people's rights.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What about them? Do they restrict gun ownership, yet still have high levels of gun violence?

The Czech Republic's gun laws are roughly on par the United States. They are required to have a license (shall-issue), but may conceal carry and purchase a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Aside from simply needing to register, their laws are actually much less strict than California's and many Northeast states. They have incredibly low rates of gun violence as well.

Switzerland isn't as free in terms of what you can do with your gun, but the fact that there are millions of "assault rifles" floating around in people's homes yet no epidemic of gun violence.

But maybe your point is that Europe's lack of crime is irrelevant to the fact that there is a gun crime problem in the USA? If so, then there are plenty of countries with both high levels of gun violence and restrictive gun ownership laws. See: South America.

 

[dank69]

So far, the latest I'd heard in the last hour -- He had communicated with terrorists who were already on the FBI radar.

I don't like the idea of NSA being able to access a complete record of my phone or internet accesses from a zillion disks stored in some . . facilities.

But if it's initially just a match of meta-data, I'll say this. Americans should have known (as I did) ten or more years ago that NSA had these capabilities. BBC had aired a documentary on the extant NSA system known as ECHELON back around '98 or '99. Bamford published his "Body of Secrets" as sequel to an earlier work -- "The Puzzle Palace." If you ever liked Redford, Poitier or Dan Ackroyd, you might have seen the fictional comic-suspense movie "Sneakers."

The issue had been -- instead -- the potential for abuse. But there are few or no cases of NSA abuse.

Why would they announce this from the FBI now? And would they have caught Farook and Marik if NSA hadn't stopped its mining of meta-data weeks or months ago? Because that's what I think may have happened, unless I've got it wrong.

This whole case is just so confusing. They clearly had all this equipment but it is also reported that he stormed out of the party and then returned with wife to shoot the place up. That points to it being a spur of the moment type thing. Maybe the guy was a prepper who just happened to have a stockpile of gear and a wife crazy enough to help him out? Just really weird. Maybe they were planning an attack and then the argument at the party convinced them to just go for it now and target the party? I hope we find out what happened and aren't just left with speculation.

 

[Blackjack200]

Please explain how you plan on making millions of guns disappear? Also, please explain how you plan on keeping criminals from illegally obtaining guns since right now, it is illegal for them to do so? Also, please explain how you would prevent law abiding citizens who will have no problems obtaining a gun now and after 'stricter' gun controls from having mental health issues so that they don't end up turning the guns against other people like most of the mass shootings that happen now?

No, the solutions are simple, have been put in place by many other counties, and have been laid out on these forums many times. It's not mechanically difficult to enact and enforce these rules.

Screaming about more 'gun control' may make you sound like you are putting on some righteous fight but you have no realistic plan that tramples on people's rights.

It's righteous to observe that people value gun rights over the lives of children? It's a plain observation.

"Hey look, the Nazis are killing Jews."
"You righteous asshole!"

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just say what you want to say. We have lots of angry, violent, scary black people here.

Okay, that only bolsters the argument for gun control. Unless you think violent crime gets less violent when you add guns in.

No, it doesn't. If a pipe has a leak do you say "Oh, I guess we better stop running water through it" or do you say "Oh, I guess we better plug that leak"? A gun-happy society will enable people to more easily access murder weapons, sure, but only a violent society will use them for murder.

 

[Remobz]

So far, the latest I'd heard in the last hour -- He had communicated with terrorists who were already on the FBI radar.

I don't like the idea of NSA being able to access a complete record of my phone or internet accesses from a zillion disks stored in some . . facilities.

But if it's initially just a match of meta-data, I'll say this. Americans should have known (as I did) ten or more years ago that NSA had these capabilities. BBC had aired a documentary on the extant NSA system known as ECHELON back around '98 or '99. Bamford published his "Body of Secrets" as sequel to an earlier work -- "The Puzzle Palace." If you ever liked Redford, Poitier or Dan Ackroyd, you might have seen the fictional comic-suspense movie "Sneakers."

The issue had been -- instead -- the potential for abuse. But there are few or no cases of NSA abuse.

Why would they announce this from the FBI now? And would they have caught Farook and Marik if NSA hadn't stopped its mining of meta-data weeks or months ago? Because that's what I think may have happened, unless I've got it wrong.

So far, it's looking like another Muslim gone jihadi in the name of Islam.

Don't piss off a Muslim living in the West these days or he might go jihadi on your butt.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, the solutions are simple, have been put in place by many other counties, and have been laid out on these forums many times. It's not mechanically difficult to enact and enforce these rules.

It's righteous to observe that people value gun rights over the lives of children? It's a plain observation.

"Hey look, the Nazis are killing Jews."
"You righteous asshole!"

It's righteous to prevent people from committing roughly 200,000 acts of self-defense every year?

 

[Blackjack200]

The Czech Republic's gun laws are roughly on par the United States. They are required to have a license (shall-issue), but may conceal carry and purchase a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Aside from simply needing to register, their laws are actually much less strict than California's and many Northeast states. They have incredibly low rates of gun violence as well.

Switzerland isn't as free in terms of what you can do with your gun, but the fact that there are millions of "assault rifles" floating around in people's homes yet no epidemic of gun violence.

In summary, the answer is "no".

But maybe your point is that Europe's lack of crime is irrelevant to the fact that there is a gun crime problem in the USA? If so, then there are plenty of countries with both high levels of gun violence and restrictive gun ownership laws. See: South America.

That's where the "functioning and effective government" comes in.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's righteous to prevent people from committing roughly 200,000 acts of self-defense every year?

That was addressed in the article. Did you read the article?

 

[Blackjack200]

No, it doesn't. If a pipe has a leak do you say "Oh, I guess we better stop running water through it" or do you say "Oh, I guess we better plug that leak"? A gun-happy society will enable people to more easily access murder weapons, sure, but only a violent society will use them for murder.

The people that are trying to plug the leak (police) are telling you to get rid of the guns. Maybe you should stop plugging your ears.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In summary, the answer is "no".

That's where the "functioning and effective government" comes in.

Yeah, like the "functioning and effective government" where certain neighborhoods have murder rates 10-fold or greater higher than others.

It's easy to make broad statements about the necessity of gun control when you ignore 90% of the world.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That was addressed in the article. Did you read the article?

Your article addressed an admittedly-faulty phone-based survey that put the figure around 2 million defensive uses per year. 200,000 per year is from the FBI.

The people that are trying to plug the leak (police) are telling you to get rid of the guns. Maybe you should stop plugging your ears.

The police are as culpable as anyone when it comes to our crime rate. Just see that recent topic about cops planting drugs on hundreds of black men. If you trust them to protect you, you're incredibly gullible.

 

[Atreus21]

Please explain how you plan on making millions of guns disappear? Also, please explain how you plan on keeping criminals from illegally obtaining guns since right now, it is illegal for them to do so? Also, please explain how you would prevent law abiding citizens who will have no problems obtaining a gun now and after 'stricter' gun controls from having mental health issues so that they don't end up turning the guns against other people like most of the mass shootings that happen now?

Screaming about more 'gun control' may make you sound like you are putting on some righteous fight but you have no realistic plan that tramples on people's rights.

Actually, you might just ask him how he's going to pass a constitutional amendment.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, like the "functioning and effective government" where certain neighborhoods have murder rates 10-fold or greater higher than others.

"Some neighborhoods have more crime than others, therefore the government is as dysfunctional as a South American dictatorship."

It's easy to make broad statements about the necessity of gun control when you ignore 90% they're supported by 100% of the world.

 

[LegendKiller]

Since when did erosion account for an entire concrete sidewalk getting submerged by an ocean twice every day when it didn't happen before?

How much higher was the concrete originally?

 

[DrunkenSano]

No, the solutions are simple, have been put in place by many other counties, and have been laid out on these forums many times. It's not mechanically difficult to enact and enforce these rules.

It's righteous to observe that people value gun rights over the lives of children? It's a plain observation.

"Hey look, the Nazis are killing Jews."
"You righteous asshole!"

To assume that the system another country uses will work in the US just like it does in that country, where they have their of variables at play, is naive or uneducated.

Also, to think that removing guns from people's hands will instantly remove mass murder or injuries is also naive. People can build pipe bombs at home, the shooters at San B? They also had pipe bombs, they were apparently rushed so they weren't used. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing.

You should focus on the root cause that causes these incidents. Crime, mental health, terrorism, etc.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

This whole case is just so confusing. They clearly had all this equipment but it is also reported that he stormed out of the party and then returned with wife to shoot the place up. That points to it being a spur of the moment type thing. Maybe the guy was a prepper who just happened to have a stockpile of gear and a wife crazy enough to help him out? Just really weird. Maybe they were planning an attack and then the argument at the party convinced them to just go for it now and target the party? I hope we find out what happened and aren't just left with speculation.

It is potentially (I emphasize) relevant that it was a Christmas party.

It is potentially relevant either way that he worked there:
[It may have arisen in a workplace dispute, possibly over religious or political differences.]
[It may suggest that we need to keep an eye on facilities, corporations or their employees who might be radicalized -- public transportation facilities, airports, nuclear and other power plants, highways, railroads -- that sort of thing.]

It is potentially relevant that his family suggested "mental illness" as only a possibility, which they could not determine.

What do you call it, though, to leave a toddler with grandma so you can go kill a dozen and a half people and then commit suicide-by-cop?

It isn't rational to go out and kill that many innocent people engaged in innocently productive public work. You can argue they've succumbed to a twisted interpretation of a holy book. But it still isn't rational.

Not being rational, it is a pursuit that erodes human progress. It has no home. All such apocalyptic visions are contrary to the idea of human progress in this life. And by some religious views, repairing the World is a pathway to Heaven, if you believe in Heaven. If you don't, repairing the World is your last best bet for anything at all.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

"Some neighborhoods have more crime than others, therefore the government is as dysfunctional as a South American dictatorship."

I'm pretty sure the majority of South American countries aren't dictatorships, even if they are heavily corrupt. The bigger issue is the war on drugs which promotes gang creation and incredible violence in order to defend a cartel's market share of drug X. American gangs are going to be less directly affected, but it's a fact that black males commit about half of all firearm violence, and ones aged 16-24 the lion's share of that. Do you think confiscating guns from every family and shutting down all gun stores is going to quickly remove gun availability from the people most responsible for our murder rate?

 

[Blackjack200]

Your article addressed an admittedly-faulty phone-based survey that put the figure around 2 million defensive uses per year. 200,000 per year is from the FBI.

No, it addressed the self-defense argument in general.

The police are as culpable as anyone when it comes to our crime rate. Just see that recent topic about cops planting drugs on hundreds of black men. If you trust them to protect you, you're incredibly gullible.

Guess we're not plugging the leak then. Better shut the water off.

Actually, you might just ask him how he's going to pass a constitutional amendment.

I'm not. Just insisting on honesty. Gun rights > the lives of children.

To assume that the system another country uses will work in the US just like it does in that country, where they have their of variables at play, is naive or uneducated.

Also, to think that removing guns from people's hands will instantly remove mass murder or injuries is also naive. People can build pipe bombs at home, the shooters at San B? They also had pipe bombs, they were apparently rushed so they weren't used. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing.

You should focus on the root cause that causes these incidents. Crime, mental health, terrorism, etc.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm pretty sure the majority of South American countries aren't dictatorships, even if they are heavily corrupt. The bigger issue is the war on drugs which promotes gang creation and incredible violence in order to defend a cartel's market share of drug X. American gangs are going to be less directly affected, but it's a fact that black males commit about half of all firearm violence, and ones aged 16-24 the lion's share of that. Do you think confiscating guns from every family and shutting down all gun stores is going to quickly remove gun availability from the people most responsible for our murder rate?

So what you're saying is that if we were to ban guns, but seize none, half of all gun violence perps would age out by 24, or within 6 years (16-24). So by 2021, we'd cut gun violence in half?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it addressed the self-defense argument in general.

No, it didn't.

Look at the Harvard social scientist David Hemenway’s work on gun violence to see how simple it is; the phrase “more guns = more homicide” tolls through it like a grim bell. The more guns there are in a country, the more gun murders and massacres of children there will be. Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. (Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.) Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances.”

See bolded. Yes, they cite a bunch of correlations between gun presence and gun homicide. So what? All gun deaths combined (including even suicide) per year fall far short of 200,000 defensive uses.

 

[Blackjack200]

what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel.