Slashdot Mirror
Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14 (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Authorities say 14 people were killed and 14 others were injured in a mass shooting in San Bernardino today. Police have mounted an intense manhunt for the gunmen who fired into a conference hall where county employees had gathered at a service center for people with disabilities. CNN reports: "The suspects were armed with long guns, Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. 'These were people that came prepared. ... They were armed with long guns, not hand guns,' he told reporters. Most of the victims were 'centrally located in one area of the facility,' Burguan said. Police didn't exchange gunfire with the shooters, he added."
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
I guess we need to make sure everyone is armed and ready to fire at all times in the whole country. That way we'll have fewer shootings.
Going to the gym? Wear an ankle holster. Going to Starbucks? Pack your trusty 12-gauge. /sarcasm
That's a lot of families affected for what might be an office dispute. Wonder what the DMV Christmas parties are like?
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack: "1 to 3 suspects on loose"
But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.
Elevating what happened may sell news, but is counterproductive for the best defense against terrorists which is life goes one as usual.
I understand that this is important news, but it doesn't really seem to fit with Slashdot's theme of news for nerds. I suppose if it were at some event that was tech/nerd related there would be enough of a reason, but this apparently has nothing to do with either of those things.
But I suppose it will generate a lot of page views and ad impressions for Dice as people rehash the same arguments over and over again.
And now Obama will go up to his podium and act sad and say things like "we must do something," "guns are bad," etc., etc. But nothing will be done (as usual) because everyone refuses to address the real problem here - the mental health status of the individual pulling the trigger. The cat's out of the bag people. People are gonna get guns if they want them bad enough regardless of what feel good regulations we pass. The real issue at hand is helping the mentally ill so they don't get to the point where they want to pull the trigger.
This isn't tech news/news for nerds.
Unless they were armed with AK-47Androids or something like that, why is Slashdot posting this?
So, we have no idea who did it or why.
But The President is already calling for new gun control laws.
And I'm expecting to hear within the next couple of days that this could have been prevented if we'd not stripped the Feds of the authority to do mass surveillance on the US population...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
another mass shooting. And we in the U.S. are worried about terrorists?
captcha: ceases ... as in, "the gun violence and the people who think the violence is acceptable without any kind of reform, never ceases to amaze me."
Want to meet the worst of humanity, Visit america! the most active war zone with coffee shops and day/night shopping.
Dollars to donuts the terrorists approached the facility in automobiles, fully legal, with no barriers to owning as many as needed. Why can't the government pass laws restricting civilians from vehicle ownership if they fail an investigation into their background? Sure, hundreds of thousands of people, mainly poor and black, will be denied vehicles, but, think of the children!
Modern app appers know that only apps can app apps, so if they had apps instead of LUDDITE guns, this wouldn't have happened!
Apps!
So the terrorists may have killed a few people, but we have lots of people in this country. And they are much too cowardly (and their god is much too ineffective) for them to take from us any of our beloved political leaders. So in my mind the terrorists have lost again.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Wonder what the DMV Christmas parties are like?
A picnic compared to Post Office Christmas parties...
I went to the local gun range today and was chatting with the owner. His business spiked since the Paris shootings, with weekly concealed carry classes booked solid through February. With this he's going to have his best Christmas sales season in years.
I'm not sure what scares me more -- random shootings, or the thought of so many yokels with concealed carry permits who've only fired a gun once or twice in their, now life trying to return fire (or thinking they can).
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Imagine that.
Shooters willing to break a law GO TO A GUN FREE ZONE TO MASSACRE PEOPLE.
Like Paris.
As if someone willing to commit mass murder CARES ABOUT BREAKING GUN LAWS.
Geez.
Less guns means less gun violence.
So everyone is talking about San Bernardino CA. Here is a twist: Did you know this was the 2nd mass shooting in the U.S. for today?
Not kidding. Earlier today in Savannah GA was another mass shooting. Another twist: This is not unusual!
On many days in the U.S., there is more than 1 mass shooting. U.S. mass shootings (meaning 4 or more people shot in an event or related events) are a daily occurrence. Starting today, we'd have to go back to November 10 to find three consecutive days without a mass shooting.
As a Canadian looking at the news flowing across the border, this boggles my mind.
Source 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsA...
Source 2: http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
Putin kicks ISIS in their ass and turkey acts real crass ... false flag
FALSE FLAG
(sing to the old batman theme)
How do you already know their motives? What policy were they trying to persuade us to change our minds about?
Less guns means you believe in magic.
I'm wondering, could the government simply buy both the guns and gun licenses back? Make it voluntary, and make it worth doing (ie buy the guns back for more than they are worth). Would that even work, or is it just a complete waste of money?
The whole 'cold dead hands' thing is troubling. I've never understood why people need so much fire power.
Is our society really that violent? Crime stats say otherwise.
No, it's another reason to relax gun laws. Making it easier for non-criminals to own and carry firearms would make the country a safer place.
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
So in this specific instance, relaxed gun laws would have had zero effect.
Which is perhaps the point of the attack.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
Or perhaps the point is that it's ridiculous to ban so-called "assault weapons" just because they look more dangerous, like red cards look faster, and therefore get stopped more often for speeding tickets.
Or perhaps there was no point to the attack... which would be impossible for some to accept, I know: many people have a deep need to blame something or someone other than the perpetrator.
https://twitter.com/bob_owens
Probably listening to a police scanner.
One suspect named "Sayed".
Another is "female, Arabic".
Total of four "suspects" apparently. Cue George Carlin....
Doesn't sound much like disgruntled employees or suicidal students...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack: "1 to 3 suspects on loose"
Well then clearly, we should get an international coalition together, and begin bombing strategic targets in San Bernardino.
Less guns means you're bad at grammar.
I can't wait until Trump declares "if only the retards had guns this would have all be avoided" = my satirical attempt at Trump's phrasing for the developmental disabled at the facility.
As I see it, the problem is as much (or more) the result of a culture that glamorizes guns and attaining significance through the use of guns. This is the fault of both the popular media and the myriad of extremely vocal pro-gun zealots on various social media outlets.
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
Huh? That number seems low. As of October 1, according to the Washington Post, there were 294 mass shootings so far in 2015, and that was still with three months left in the year. That accounted for 380 deaths so far, with well over 1,000 injured.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal claims "the US leads the world in mass shootings." http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Follow up the thread. You'll then understand why I deliberately used "less guns".
Arm the robots... seems like it would be easy enough to create a device that would be installed in a public place and continuously scan for weapons and gunshots. You pull a gun or fire off a shot, and the nice little robot dazzles you with blinding laser light and patches the video feed to the authorities. When I say 'easy' I mean 'in the next 20 years' anyway, since we'll need similar sorts of machine intelligence to drive cars and fly drones.
Yeah, it's not foolproof, but something in that vein might be commonplace in 20 years.
That said, I think the most likely scenario is to place severe restrictions on ammunition. I'm not saying I support it(i don't have kids... I really don't care... I'll be dead soon, so have fun with the world folks. It was fun living in the good times.). Just saying I think it's where we're headed next. Yes, anyone can make ammunition(and guns, and explosives, and knives... etc). But it is difficult enough to do that I think it will be the next target of the opponents of the second amendment.
We really need media control.
I would say, that 1st amendment has limits. If shouting "fire" in the theater will get you in jail, because of the potential psychosis and stampede, the same way mass hysteria channels CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC, would have a right to report only statistically representative events. This should not apply to real mainstream news - Facebook, etc, because that is how many of the people get news, and Facebook is, in a way, glorified gossip club. All television does is promotion of a cheap way to get publicity.
Before one mass shooting is reported on television, there would be a forceful reporting automobile accidents, suicides, drownings, medication overdoses, cardiac arrests, hospital errors. Statistically, death from violent terrorist attack is so statistically rare that in a year there would hardly any re-portable event.
At the same time, this would be eradication of advertising, and an incentive, for those potential mass shooters/terrorists.
For they want nothing else, but fame, glory, to be shown and talked about on the news. This needs to be stopped.
__________
I am praying for the victims tonight.
Everyone thinks guns are the problem. American pharma is to blame!
Vote for corruption and communism! Vote Killary Clinton for President! #KillaryForPresident #Hilkary2016
(do you think that these guys would have been able to killed or wounded 14 in a crowd and then just DRIVE AWAY if any substantial number of the crowd had been armed?)
Make that "killed or wounded 28". Last number I saw was 14 of each.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Which should have been "fewer guns" for both of you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, I think you are wrong, we need more guns in the right hands... Follow me on this...
MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually provides a deterrence by making it more risky for criminals who choose to use their guns illegally. Shooters generally choose "soft" targets, places where they know guns are less common such as movie theaters or public schools for a reason. Further, having armed law abiding citizens means that it is more likely a criminal shooter will be confronted with deadly force sooner which is very likely to end the shooting event sooner as most shooters will withdraw or commit suicide when they are confronted.
So, more guns in the right hands will deter mass shootings and when they do happen (and they will) having more guns in the right hands will lower the body counts. So I conclude we need MORE guns out there, in the right hands.
Then there is the whole constitutional problem the "less guns" folks try to ignore. The only way 'less guns" works is if you go out and take the majority of the guns in circulation now and destroy them, but legally you cannot do this in any practical way I can imagine. The Second Amendment makes gun ownership a right of the people and the courts have upheld this right so you cannot take it away, short of removing the second amendment. Plus, short of going out and doing an exhaustive search for weapons (think of jackboots going door to door) and confiscating them the only people you will disarm by making guns illegal are the very people you really want to be armed. Exhaustive searches are also a constitutional problem, so you are going to need to make another change or two in that pesky bill of rights.
So stop this emotional "Less Guns" idea. Where I understand the emotional appeal, it's totally unworkable as an idea due to the Bill of Rights, will arguably have exactly the opposite affect you desire, and simply cannot solve the problem.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Too much truth for our libfriends. They'd rather bury their heads in the sand and hope only "nice" Muslims move into their neighborhood.
This isn't tech news/news for nerds.''
Sure it is.
Guns are tech, and lots of "nerds" are "gun nuts" and vice-versa. Misuse of this tech, and moves to restrict or ban it, is very much "news for nerds". (Especially since finding legal workarounds for the protections on one constitutional right creates precedent that can be applied to others - like free speech and the press, in the form of an open internet.)
(The model rocket guys found out, a couple decades back, that model rockets are "weapons", too, as far as uncle sam is concerned.)
It's also "stuff that matters". (I notice that you didn't even bother to question that.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How is this news?
Take your medication, Ahmed. Allah wills it.
Lol. "Sensible speech control". This is going places.
What is particularly galling about this is that Mr. Obama has chosen yet another tragedy as a chance to politicize the issue.
Let me fix that for you... he chooses every tragedy to politicize the issue. Except for the tragedies that demonstrate the abject failure of strict gun control, like this one: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10...
We checked our pieces in at the door. No one had arms in the Saloon.
Funny, that conservative thinking would result to those old rules....
I read somewhere it was a swat training session that went wrong.
That's a lot of families affected for what might be an office dispute. Wonder what the DMV Christmas parties are like?
Take a number, we will be able to answer your question in about 2 hours...NEXT!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Okay, how about this one then: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/...
Twenty-nine people were killed and 130 were injured. Body count high enough for you? No guns required or involved.
It's not guns. It's assholes. And personally, I think it's the media splashing this shit all over everything, giving people ideas. But that's just an IMHO.
--fyngyrz*
* Posting anon due to mod points - c'mon slashdot, there's no good reason for that, and never has been.
After watching several news stations even local ones. Its very hard to know what these shooters motives or affiliations were. So much conflicting information and a lot of it is more guessing and hearsay then actually facts. Given their full dress of military like equipment I would say these 3 individuals are far more then someone with a grudge or some mentally disturbed. These were individuals who planned this, knew what they were doing. Now it could be domestic terrorists which is certainly possible. Or international terrorists like ISIS or ISIS sympathizers. Because this was not a singular gunman it becomes far more critical to find out who these people are and if there is more people involved.
With that logic less ice cream means less ice cream related obesity. That doesn't mean there won't be less obese people.
By your logic I could shoot a single morbidly obese person at sea level and be labelled a mass shooter, or shoot 50 people in Low-earth orbit and potentially not be. Or did you mean by total mass? Then again that becomes dangerously tautological.
I was attempting irony.
If 3 people equals a mass, then any time 3 people show up at a zoning meeting to complain about a proposed speed bump on a street where they commute to work, that's a "mass protest", and the Supreme Court has ruled that you can relegate any "mass protest" to a "free speech zone", meaning "not the zoning hearing".
So if we accept this definition of a "mass", then we can easily suppress any dissent over any public policy whatsoever, simply by declaring any opposition by three or more people something that should take place in a "free speech zone" for the duration of the "protest", and relegate them to the boiler room in the subbasement while we decide whatever the hell we want to decide, and no one says anything when we ask "Is there any opposition to this going through?", because they're all in the boiler room, and don't get to hear or answer the question.
So it's kind of annoying that we tend to inflate things out of all proportion for political purposes.
Hence my use of irony to draw attention to the stupidity of doing so.
if they didn't have weapons, they'd just be assholes.
tired of all the innocent people in this country being killed, like it's normal.
it's stupid. fucking stupid.
Three guys driving up in an SUV, shooting up the place, and driving away must be quite an office dispute. Sounds more like an intra-office war over a red stapler.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Wasn't that supposed to be the way things worked in the Old West? Funny, you'd think that if that had been such an effective technique, it would have spread, instead of being fairly uncommon even in places where going open-carry was once supposed to be the norm.
I'll let others debate the wisdom of adding even more ammunition ricocheting about, but what I find more interesting is that supposedly the entire nation of Germany (not exactly known for being "faint-hearted") fires off less police ammunition in an entire year than a single SWAT raid in Atlanta uses.
The USA believes that guns are magic and can solve all problems. Don't like being told you can't smoke in a diner? Stand Your Ground and shoot the employees! Laid off? Go back and klll them all! Don't like Planned Parenthood? Exterminate! Rejected for a date? Blow away your school!
I really don't care if gun ownership is restricted or not in the abstract. My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it. If certain people can be reliably be determined to be prone to irresponsible use of guns - or for that matter, for anything, then it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to want to limit their access.
Something needs to be done, and I doubt that simply passing laws is going to solve it. We've gotten to the point where mass shootings are like Windows Virus alerts - so common that people have begun to give up even taking notice. Ho-hum, here we go again.
Someth8ing to chew on:
Homicide ranks, rates and rules by country:
USA: ------- 129th -- 3.8 (guns ok)
AUSTRALIA: - 198th -- 1.1 (no guns)
SWITZERLAND: 221st -- 0.6 (guns ok)
JAPAN: ----- 225th -- 0.3 (no guns)
IOW, it's culture. People. Not guns.
--fyngyrz*
* Posting anon due to mod points - c'mon slashdot, there's no good reason for that, and never has been.
Wouldn't be a real tragedy if people didn't immediately start trying to push their political agenda.
However if you want to play stupid politics, you might want to think a little about the whole situation since perhaps it doesn't support your narrative quite as much as you hope. Consider that the most recent two shootings occurred in California, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, and France, which has far more restrictive gun laws than anywhere in the US.
So my recommendation? How about STFU with the politics, at least for a bit until there is some more information out. Also when you do push politics, maybe do some thinking about what evidence you want to use, and actually state what you think should be done, rather than just make snarky statements.
Numbers of guns aside (we are talking 300 million plus here) there is the issue of the Constitution. You have to remember that in the US the Constitution is above Federal law. All laws have to conform to it, it overrides, and thus the rights in the Bill of Rights section of it are rather sacred and protected.
Now if can be changed, but it is quite hard. It's only happened 17 times (the first 10 came in when the Constitution was first signed). First an amendment hast to be introduced. That requires either 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to vote for it. If either doesn't meet that super majority, it isn't introduced. Otherwise is requires 2/3rds of states to apply to congress to call a national convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution (this has never happened).
However that doesn't amend the Constitution, just introduce an amendment. Then it goes to the states themselves. 3/4ths of the states must then vote to ratify the amendment the Constitution. If enough states don't ratify, it doesn't become law.
So getting rid of the second amendment would requires a VERY large amount of Americans to support it to happen. And pure numbers don't matter, distribution does since it comes to the states. Even if 100% of the population in the populous states wants an amendment, if enough of the less populous don't want it, it can't happen.
Well, without getting rid of the second amendment, a gun ban can't happen. There have been numerous court rulings affirming that it is an individual right, as the other rights are, and thus the government can't just ban gun private ownership. They can regulate it, and they do, but they can't outright ban it without changing the Constitution which would be real, real, unlikely to happen.
Troll.
You're clearly going to have to do better than that.
Nothing fantastical about having drastically fewer guns in circulation. It's just a highly unpopular idea in the U.S. At the very least I would imagine that sort of initiative curbing down the annual firearm homicide rate to levels typical of other developed countries, since it's overwhelmingly attributed to street thugs whom just as easily do the deed with legal guns. Highly organized groups may still manage to access weapons (as seen in France) but short of keeping tabs through surveillance there's fuck all you can do about that.
So by "right hands" you mean any and all hands willing to carry one with no criminal intent. It seems police forces discourage civilians to draw weapons in the vast majority of cases as lack of training (both for high stress situations and proficiency) can lead to serious mistakes or exaberations. Such as killing the wrong person, provoking fire, etc. With a weapon drawn on you personally, drawing back would cease to be vigilantism but frankly, having a gun drawn on you and intention to kill, there's scant chance to fire back in time.
More victims of a "gun free zone." Basically all mass shootings happen in gun free zones. I guess the gunmen didn't see the no guns sign. They should make the sign bigger. If they tried this kind of shit in my state (Wisconsin) there would be return fire. NOBODY here with a concealed carry permit obeys those bullshit signs.
So a guy gets into an argument, runs home, tells his friends, the three of them decide to suit up, grab their 'long rifles' and a bunch of pipe bombs and head back to the community center and shoot it up??? Wow.
"My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it."
Killing is a gun's sole utility. None of your other household items share that quality. In a pinch, of course they could do the job, given you have enough strength to overwhelm your opponent, or they're left unaware. Responsibility is kind of a moot point of comparison given how difficult it is to "accidentally" kill someone with a wrench.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
Actually, a University of Pennsylvania study (DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099) examined over 600 incidents in the Philly area, and found that carrying a gun actually increases ones chances of getting shot and killed:
* https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
And not by a small amount: by 4.5x (450%). You're actually much safer being unarmed, statistically speaking.
Yawn. That argument has been total bullshit since the day it first oozed out of someone's ass. Shootings happen in all kinds of places, and good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy, and we should stop basing policy on fantasies.
So far the USA is averaging more than one mass-shooting (involving 4 or more people) per day this year. Ever wondered how non-US people view US gun culture? Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Seriously? Do you live in a place so violent that you feel a need to have deadly force constantly at your side? Are you that risk-averse?
There are people like that out there:
Long story short I like to carry a gun every minute that I am awake. [] I realized that the only moment in which I am 100 percent vulnerable and unarmed is when I take a shower. I typically lock the door but any grown man could kick it in if they really wanted to.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/3tvci6/showering/
The OP in that Reddit link was asking for options for packing heat while bathing (presumably he already has a solution for the toilet).
This is an extension of what happens when government makes bad economic. At first it was lower standard of living, then crime increases, now people are losing it.
Time to throw some grenades on the bonfire
We really need media control.
No. Because someone (or some group) would have the power to decide what gets censored and what doesn't. And that power would be abused horribly eventualy, there's no way to avoid it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
'nuff said.
Putin kicks ISIS in their ass and turkey acts real crass ... false flag
FALSE FLAG
(sing to the old batman theme)/./.
Moslems have killed over 130 people in Europe this year
Moslems have killed over 60,000 people in the Middle East this year
Moslems have just killed 14 people in California
Isn't it time to ban *ISLAM*?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Are you all fucking serious? This is the same group of people who SCREAM about their rights when it comes to the NSA, but if it's about a fundamental right to arm themselves, then you'll happily bend over and take it up the ass while corrupt politicians line their pockets while having armed bodyguards and now they don't have the threat of the gun to keep them in line? Are you all fucking stupid?
Or you live in any developed country other than the USA...
This wouldn't have happened if California had good gun control!
I can't wait until these idiotic comments go out of fashion with the Right. They're about as clever and insightful as the lame puns based on Obama's name like "Obummer".
Yes, we all know that a gun free zone doesnt magically erect an anti gun force field. What it does do is it allows cops to arrest people who are seen with guns in these areas. It is most certainly not a fool proof method but it does allow for police officers to detain some one who might be up to something.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Putting up signs declaring a gun-free zone does not in fact establish a zone safe from guns. I would like to see legislation requiring that gun-free zones have airport-style security perimeters. THEN people might feel a little safer in them.
Some people are astoundingly ignorant. You happen to not be one of them.
What is the function of an armed population? The answer is to balance the power of the people and government. They are for the protection of the people against a government that would coerce the population, that is why you have the right to bare arms in countries, so the population can respond to domestic threats. These events are an unfortunate consequence of having that freedom and any discussion about the merits of an armed population must be weighed up against that.
The question I'm wondering is why does this happen so frequently in the U.S whereas it doesn't happen in Canada or other armed populations? Making them illegal won't help because a criminal won't care if it is an illegal weapon, weapons training, whilst useful isn't helping, nor is it a law enforcement issue because police have plenty of powers of arrest.
It is fairly easy to see what the issue is *not* so is there a cultural issue driving these shootings? Are people so excluded from society that they feel this is the only option left?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In the interest of equality which the moderators at Slashdot seem obsessively concerned with recently, isn't it incredibly sexist to refer to the shooters as "gunmen"?
The jews were disarmed before they were rounded up during WWII. How did not having a way to protect themselves work out for them?
Are you seriously suggesting that the German Jews of the 1930s, if they had not had gun ownership restrictions, would have been able to successfully resist the Gestapo, SD, SS and Wehrmacht? Or that the above organizations would have said to themselves, "Whoa. Our political ideology is based on blaming 'international Jewry' for the economic woes of the Aryan German volk. Since the early '20s we've been very clear in saying we'd like to see them out of Germany entirely... one way or another. But some of them have rifles or handguns, and AMG (Ach Mein Gott!) concealed carry permits! Let's back off and not implement the Final Solution."
And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them? How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
There are plenty of valid reasons for responsible people to own guns. To claim that one of them is because it will prevent tyranny by one's own government in the modern era is totally fucking batshit insane. Find a real justification.
"95% of all Slashdot
Moving to Switzerland, I was delighted to learn about the marriage procedures.
EVERYONE gets "married" in the local council offices. You can bring some witnesses along, you can dress up nice, but you can't sing, pray or do anything that the mayor has not authorised. And the mayor is NOT authorised herself to permit singing blahblahblah. It's a legal process. The end. No coffee and tea, no hymns, no anecdotes, no booze. You get your 30 minute window, then you get the fuck out of the way FAST so the next marriage can proceed.
AFTER THAT, you can to the church of your choice and do a "wedding" if you want, but there's no requirement to and no obligation either.
The wedding has NO OFFICIAL STATE RECOGNITION. Never has.
And this country is resolutely Christian in its culture.
Most people willingly pay the "ecclesiastical tax" to either the protestant or catholic church organisations.
The parent is correct. There's an easy win fix to the problem, but no will to do so, cause then OH NO - TEH GAYZ WILL PERVERT OUR KIDZ !!!
Fucking Americans are fucking stupid.
Nothing will stop a bad guy with a gun. Not a good guy with a gun, not many good guys with bigger guns, not a police force that takes 15 minutes to respond, and not a disarmed population. But that is because Bad Guys are Bad Guys before guns get into the equation - victims get up and go about their day, while Bad Guys plan to do terrible things in advance and enter the victims' space intending to do harm. These aren't wild west gunfights in the street, these are more like guerilla surprise strikes.
This is dumb as hell that when someone does something horrible to someone else with a gun, we flip our shit about the gun. But I suppose you can't legislate people to be nice to each other, and it's good play to attack your opponent du jour for not doing enough to restrict the guns that "caused" the problem.
We're a melting pot of different cultures and beliefs, we welcome everyone from the doctors to the dregs of every society to come here. We embrace the diversity, which is wonderful. But that includes the assholes, the bigots, the hateful, the prejudiced, those who intend to do harm, and those who can be swayed to do it. As a people we cover almost the entire spectrum of every conceivable faith, dogma, moral structure, opinion, and incompatible code that can possibly exist in this world. As a country we throw our weight around and stick our noses into everything we can, we bring out way to the corners of the globe because it is right, and of course it is, it must be, and we welcome even those people that we offend into our lands with open arms. Even internally we divide ourselves, label our enemies as left/right wing nutjobs, draw political lines, and point fingers at each other because we didn't vote for the leaders in charge. And somehow removing legal guns from the equation will make everything perfect. It's all so simple, no wonder we're so mad at the NRA.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really? How about good guys with no guns vs. a bad guy with AKM + 9 mags + a handgun + a knife:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now, I'm all for banning big guns, but small caliber pocket pistols that preferably take forever to reload, that's a different story. Can't go on a mass shooting rampage with one, won't be lethal when goes through a wall or a desk, but enough to stop a bad guy when needed. Not guaranteed of course, but better than trying to bum-rush an AKM empty-handed.
i think there plenty of other countries around the world with guns laws disagree.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
still living in the time of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... then....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
A quick Google reveals that around 1 in 5 Californians own guns. Of course not everyone carries it all the time, but there must have been a lot of guns in that room. Why weren't the shooters just killed by people from the audience?
Maybe there weren't enough weapons in the room. So just maybe, the NRA should promote handing out weapons to everyone there, to allow people to defend themselves? Or put some guns on every dinner table. That would scare off all possible shooters!
As a Canadian, I find it hilarious that in order to protect the 2nd Amendment you're willing to sacrifice the 1st Amendment.
You're an idiot.
Shit muzzies again. Solution: intern and/or expel shit muzzies.
Firearms are useless and even dangerous, unless you are armoured to withstand your own weapon's caliber. That old rule has been standing since the era of battleships. Whenever that rule was violated, the result became a disaster (e.g. the naval battle of Jutland in WWI or the british battle-cruiser Hood in WW2). The same rule is strictly enforced by police departments to this day.
Now think about it for people: the highest protective vest level (publicly) possible with just flexible fabric, i.e. without hard-plating is the Level IIIA. That means stopping 9mm full-auto, like the Uzi or a HK MP5 from seven paces. If the attacker has AK-47 or M-16, you need swedish steel or russian titanium plate inserts as a minimum. If the attacker uses .308Win or Mosin-Nagant or most any hunting rifle, the vest insert plates need to be ceramic for stopping ($$$$ ka-ching).
Are civilians willing to walk around wearing vests that easily weight 10% or more of their body mass? You will also sweat like a pig in it, since the vest cannot be porous by definition. You should also don a kevlar helmet and wear the vest with collar up, else the protection is quite token. It's probably better to walk around unarmed and unarmoured, but please don't forget the helmet when skiing or riding a bike! (Hint: Michael Schumacher is now recovering and he will walk in public in 2016.)
Oh really, so how many mass shootings happen in police stations? How about shooting ranges? How about gun stores? Less than 0.05% jackass. Wanna know why, I will tell you why, because there are good guys with guns there. The criminals in this mass shooting today, they were stopped by good guys with guns. Statistics tell us that by far the most effective tool to stop a criminal with a deadly weapon (gun, knife, sword, machete, car, etc.) is a gun, and until you can wrap your vacuous head around that concept, you will be rolling in your own mental feces.
Guns haven't changed much in 50 years because they are the pinnacle of projecting force over a distance. They are simple to use, and with the practice and proficiency required to get a CCW permit, civilians become perfectly capable of taking out a criminal, and the statistics back me up all day long. If you bothered to do any actual research rather than regurgitating what your libtard professor or MSNBC spoon fed you you would know this. If the shit ever does hit the fan, the libtard race will go the way of the dodo so fast it will be pitiful because you are so brainwashed that you can't even see what is clearly in your best interest (i.e. a portion of the law abiding citizenry being armed as a deterrent to violent criminals and government overreach).
Driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, owning firearms is. The solution to mass shootings is simple, incarcerate the mentally ill and force them to take their damn meds. The solution to home grown terrorism is realizing that it is Muslim in nature and put the spies back in the mosques and disappear radicals talking about jihad. Don't let more Muslims in because their religion is incompatible with our constitution and boot out any that don't swear allegiance to America over Islam or ever show any tendency to put Islam first. I am sick of this religion of peace bullshit. It is a savage religion that preaches violence and treachery against all non believers and it needs to be banned in the civilized world. Don't project Christianity onto Islam. Christianity can be summed up as love your neighbor as yourself. Islam can be summed up as lie to and murder your neighbor, steal his shit and rape his wife if he isn't a Muslim...
AAAAAnd the mass shooting today was brought to you by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, but Islam is the religion of peace...
There was a news story yesterday that the US now basically has a mass shooting once a week, but many go un- or underreported.
Sure more people die on the streets still. But there is still a difference between an accident and a murder, and it's an important one: The shooting is not an accident. It's intentional.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yawn. That argument has been total bullshit since the day it first oozed out of someone's ass. Shootings happen in all kinds of places, and good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy, and we should stop basing policy on fantasies.
How did this bullshit get modded insightful? I've seen plenty of stories about people protecting themselves with guns. I've heard personal stories from people protecting themselves with guns. You won't hear about it in the national media because there is a campaign for more gun control and they won't cover anything that doesn't fit their agenda. Occasionally stories appear in newspapers and they pop up on my news feed every so often. Do a google search and you can find plenty of examples.
Did you see that Obama said that mass shootings only happen in the U.S...
IN PARIS! DUDE, NOT FUNNY!
They'll stoop to any level to prove to us with statistics that we should erode our rights. Pitiful. Hopefully nobody really died. See http://82.221.129.208/ifyouare... (Jim Stone's site).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
A mass shooting a day. A week between mass shootings would be an enormous improvement.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
but CNN won't report that.
Ban bullets. Specifically lead, a known hazardous toxic substance that is already regulated or outright banned in many other products.!
Or are you nutters now going to state that protecting wild life from lead shot is more important than protecting human lives for lead poisoning regardless of delivery method?
Remember when they banned lead in gas and a generation later there was a easily seen drop in violent crime? I do wonder about gun nuts being more violent as many were raised in that culture, thus developed with elevated lead levels in their blood. Guess that's why the NRA is soon keen in getting kiddos involved early: warp them permanently thru chemistry!
So you can keep your precious, precious peni^H^H^H^H guns.. with wallowed-out barrels from steel projectiles, or now with the stopping power of a BB gun, or bullets too high-tech to reload and too expensive to actually use. But the 2nd Amendment says JACK SHIT about ammo. Fuck, if you're a strict Constructionist, you should only be using muzzle-loading black powder weapons anyway!
The USA, has an average rate that's more than 1 mass shooting per day for 2015, Obviously, we're doing something wrong. Given how well things work in America, I expect we are going to have some deep and serious debates at all levels of government....about raising the threshold in the definition of Mass Shooting from 4 victims to something more reasonable. Maybe 7? 10? What do you think?
Killing is a gun's sole utility.
Mine must be broken--I've put thousands of rounds through them, and the only thing they've killed is a family pet my ex-wife made me put down rather than having the vet do it.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them?
Mind you, at the time, a number of these states had restrictive gun ownership laws that were fairly similar to those of Nazi Germany. So in many cases, there was no real difference with regard to the capability (or lack thereof) for Jewish self-defence. That having been said, in this whole context it is vitally important to remember that the Nazis managed to keep the true nature of the Holocaust a secret from the majority of the population, including Jews that were still at large, or living in ghettoes and such, during the entire duration of the Third Reich. Sure, anti-semitism was widespread, and far too few people objected to "the Jews" being taken away for "deportation", or to "labor camps". These were the reasons that were publicly given for removing Jewish people from their places of residence: and to their shame, hardly anyone in the non-Jewish population batted an eyelid to this happening (as if "just" deporting an entire part of the population was a tolerable thing to happen!).
However, had they actually known that the place "the Jews" were headed to was not just "labor camps", but actual death camps - well, there is no way to say what would have happened, had people actually known this. IMHO, at least Jewish self-defence would likely have been much more pronounced: if you know that you are going to die anyway (as opposed to being sent to some labor camp, which sounds at least theoretically survivable), you become much more motivated to make any sort of attempt to fight back.
There was actually a precedent why the Nazis decided to keep the Holocaust such a state secret, even with Anti-Semitism being rampant in the population: and that was the outcome of Aktion T4. Basically, there was such a public outcry over their earlier programme to straight out kill mentally handicapped people for "reasons of public health", that the programme had to be halted. To put this into full perspective, you have to realise that this push-back against Nazi policy took place while Nazi Germany was already a fully developed police state that was at war. And still public opinion was so much against T4 happening, that the party leadership caved in. No wonder that they chose to do their dirty work in total secrecy from then on.
How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
You do realise that the main reason for the Warsaw Uprising to fail was the swinish behaviour of the Soviets in the whole matter? The Polish Underground Army started the uprising to co-incide with the Red Army reaching Warsaw in time to join in on the whole thing, which would have made the outcome of the fight a foregone conclusion. What they had not counted on was that the Polish underground fighters were, by and large, not communists - and were therefore expendable to Stalin, and were rather seen as a problem by themselves. So the Soviets patiently stopped on the outskirts of Warsaw while the uprising went on, waited until the Germans had finished off the Poles, and only then took Warsaw.
So the failure of the uprising is hardly a valid data point to argue against armed insurrections in general. You just have to time them right, and pick the right sort of allies for them to succeed.
We don't need to give you a justification, statist. The 2nd Amendment exists, no matter how much you may dislike it.
Yeah, just as you can stab someone with a kitchen knife, you can put a few rounds into a can of beans with a firearm. Doesn't change it's purpose.
If he's not, then the entire race is scum.
This summary brought to you so you won't have to watch fox news or listen to the rightwing shockjock radio.
Wussy "leftist" media will be too shit scared to do any different, because the other side has guns and are desperate for a reason to use them.
Muslims must renounce Mohammed for there to be peace.
good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy
A recent CDC-commissioned report found that defensive gun use happens *at least* as often (if not more often) than criminal gun use. But let's see a list of things that "never ever" happened:
In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”
In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”
In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested.
Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.
In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty.
In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to
Moslems have just killed 14 people in California
Isn't it time to ban *ISLAM*?
There have been more than 350 mass shootings in the USA this year, and I believe this is the only one carried out by Muslims. The vast majority were carried out by Christians. Several were even referring to their Christian beliefs as part of their rationale for the shooting (including one just last week). Add in all the single shootings perpetrated by Christians in the US, and you are likely in the thousands this year alone.
That's thousands vs. 14. So if banning religions is the solution to this, which should we ban first, to get the most impact?
The US has always been more violent.
I don't think the US has "always" been more violent. Go back before WWII and I bet you would see much lower rates of gun violence despite no gun control laws. You could even own automatic weapons back then.
In Europe sex is okay on TV and violence is less acceptable. In the US sex on TV is not okay and violence is acceptable. I believe there is a direct correlation between the explosion of violence in video entertainment and the increase in mass shootings and especially the choice to make these shootings even more horrific so as to shock even a public so desensitized to violence. Violence begets more violence. If you see it on TV or on the streets you are going to become more violent in response and when you want to do something violent to get attention or go out with a bang then you are going to seek to be more violent. It is a competition and a cycle.
Most gun deaths are suicides, and when you see shootings where there is a low probability of escaping unharmed it is basically a suicide, but with a person who wants to go out and use violence to make either a political or some other statements on their way out.
How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
The Warsaw Uprising worked quite well. The German occupying forces were significantly weakened by Polish insurgents just prior to the arrival of the advancing Russian forces, exactly as intended. That the Russians decided to pause their advance just outside of Warsaw, allowing the decimated Germans to slaughter the remains of the Polish insurgency before capturing Warsaw for mother Russia, is no fault of the Poles.
While the Warsaw Uprising has nothing to do with confiscation of arms, this transparently dickheaded move by Russia is but one of countless reasons why Poles, generally speaking, hate them.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
A small number kept the German army out of the Warsaw Ghetto for six weeks. So, potentially, yes.
Furthermore, most "disgruntled employees" do not go home, get their wives, drop the kid off at grandma's, go to work, and both of them shoot the place up. Guess what folks? This was a terror attack.
OMG, this idea is brilliant. Why yes, I could use some easy money at taxpayers' expense. I would like to subscribe to your metal detector manufacturer newsletter. And your reseller newsletter. And the maintenance contract one too, please. Oh, and I think the bored staff who stand around the machines should be forced to unionize.
People talk about gun-free zones with contempt, but we need to start thinking of them as a yet-unfulfilled opportunity. Please, everyone, let this San Bernardino thing be the 9/11 to help kickstart the next security theater industry expansion. We can be the visionary grifters sucking the life out of the public in exchange for absolutely nothing of value. Chant with me: "gun-free zones! enforce them! enforce them! gun-free zones! enforce them! enforce them!"
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
> There are plenty of valid reasons for responsible people to own guns. To claim that one of them is because it will prevent tyranny by one's own government in the modern era is totally fucking batshit insane. Find a real justification.
I'm a Finn, and I'm looking at Ukraine. We have a mostly conscript army, but them youngsters are proud at what they can do if needed. Who would be next under pressure, the NATO Baltic countries or the ever nice non-NATO little old neutral Finland?
I'd agree that handguns don't prevent tyranny. Artillery, plenty of it, is what prevents tyranny. We have enough to make any attack worthless. With Zhirinovskis and Putins and other opportunists going there, you have to prepare for the worst. Might be the next gameplan. And the Russians living here have mixed thoughts about all this. I don't envy them. Actually have quite many friends among them.
But the posters idea of not having guns. Only works if everybody is having swords. I guess we have the oldest culture in Europe (in south Finland) so welcome to try your swords
Beyond the weapons situation .. which appears to have no political solution ...
We cannot really ignore the fact that these crimes have a strong base in one religion. If these people hate so much the US and Europe, perhaps they should move to Syria or Irak with their families. There are plenty Christians out there (of the type that don't blow up) that would like to leave countries like Irak and Syria, let's just do a "humanitarian exchange" without killing anyone.
It would be illegal to blame someone for what their close family member did but the only posthumous punishment for this inhuman beasts would be to extradite their *families* out of western civilization.
So based on the chance that somebody who is trying to do right may make a mistake in judgment in the midst of a mass shooting you would condemn ALL the victims the crazy murderer might be able to shoot? That's stupid.
Personally, I'd be willing to take my chances with somebody who was trying to stop the shooter over the guy intent on creating as much carnage as possible. Yea, I might still get shot by mistake, but that's a lot less likely than getting shot on purpose by some crazy with a gun.
I'd bet you would welcome the intervention of a good guy with a gun if you and your associates where being systematically shot down by some crazy. You know you would...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There are unique aspects to the shooting, but evidence shows (quite strongly) that this was an act of radical Islamist jihad.
The attacks were carried out by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
Farook was, by his father's description, a Muslim who had recently turned devout.
He married his wife on a trip to Saudi Arabia.
Spontaneous killing sprees don't tend to involve a bag full of pre-assmbled pipe bombs.
This was an act of premeditated radical Islamist jihad. No gun control laws were going to prevent it.
I'm looking at your comment, and there's nothing in it that argues "we need media control". You talk about some recent websites like Facebook, but that has nothing to do with your point.
... [unlikely to be successfully] ending up a successful vigilante peacekeeper after a few hours training.
If you'd taken the training, you wouldn't be misusing the term "vigilante". One big part of it is to NOT be one.
FYI: Self-defence, (and legitimate defence of others) occurs from the time the attack on you/others (or creditable threat) begins until the time there is no further creditable threat - usually when the attacker is incapacitated and under restraint, or on the run.
It's always vigilantism if you try to hunt down the attacker once he's out of sight. (Before that, jurisdictions vary on when self defense ends and whether you're allowed to use deadly force to accomplish a citizen's arrest. For instance: Oregon did, and may still, allow you to shoot at a housebreaker even if he's dropped his gun and is running to his car: Case law said it's reasonable to believe he may be trying to get another, bigger, weapon from his vehicle to resume the attack.)
Police are just formalized, professional, vigilantes. Citizens in most jurisdictions retain many of the same powers as a civil right.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Your comment is objectively false. Armed civilians stop would-be mass shooters all the time.
"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started."
Killing is a gun's sole utility. None of your other household items share that quality. In a pinch, of course they could do the job, given you have enough strength to overwhelm your opponent, or they're left unaware. Responsibility is kind of a moot point of comparison given how difficult it is to "accidentally" kill someone with a wrench.
And yet out of all of the guns I own (I'm a federally licensed collector so that's no small number) only one of them has been used to kill a person and two others have been used to kill animals (for food).
Fixed
Hmm I should probably note the one that has been used to kill a person is a weapon that was used in world war two, hence its usage. Nowadays it just punches holes in paper.
good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns
I'm guessing that you've never, ever tried to challenge this idea.
Is this shit on /.?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
...will be created by H1Bs under anyone but Trump.
I'd welcome security placement but of course even that doesn't guarantee safety. Shooting the shooter doesn't retroactively "protect" those who've been killed, which could include the guards. They move quickly. It's nothing to walk in to an office room, have everyone in your sights before they know what's going on, and move on to the next. By the time everyone has reason to suspect there's a shooter about, they're running the fuck out of there, not confronting the shooter: that would be stupid. A room full of people whom are carrying would not stop what's coming for them. So yeah, I'd well favor a scenario with a drastic reduction of guns in circulation over heavily armed populace.
Quick! let's give away all of our rights so our trustworthy government will protect us!
Everyone seems to miss a key fact about firearms: A firearm can maim or kill many people at a distance in a few moments of time before they even know the shooter's there.
muskets for everyone.
Ban cars too then. And how about rocks and sticks next.
Your choice I guess, but allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed is cost free and enhances security. If you want to provide armed guards, all the better. You want to make the location appear to not be a "soft target" so the shooters will move on to easier pickings... That's great, but it's expensive and doesn't really solve the problem, it just shifts it to some other location.
Look, nothing is going to stop a determined and intelligent shooter from attacking a soft target and causing a lot of carnage. But the ONLY way you stop a shooting in progress is to confront the shooter(s) with deadly force. The sooner you can confront them, the sooner you can stop the carnage. If a prospective victim happens to be armed and chooses to attempt to defend themselves, there is a reasonable chance the shooting can be disrupted and a great chance that this will save lives.
I say, Let the law abiding people defend themselves, let them carry fire arms. It's not a perfect solution, but it will help reduce body counts in mass shootings.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Postal Service.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” OTOH Alexi Panshin, "Star Well", pointed out that a bully will be more likely to practice and rehearse for dueling, and more likely to either pick fights or take umbrage for no reason, simply for the entertainment of shooting people.
As a non-American I could not longer give a stuff how many get killed in these almost daily mass shootings. I have given up trying to talk sense into the gun lunatics of America. They are too stupid to understand common sense and logic. You love your guns, so enjoy your tragedies.
When i was 14 my gun kept a gangmember from kicking down my front door and trying to murder me for witnessing him commit an attempted triple homicide.
Sure, I won't deny it could reduce body counts. It's just that the 'problem' as I would frame it is that mass shootings happen, at an inexcusable rate. Softening the blow is not enough initiative to my mind. Though obviously, without getting into it, the issues do extend beyond guns themselves. I'd be relieved if apologist politicians would put their money where their mouth is and push to provide mental health care to those that need it without question, reduce poverty, etc, all things that independently are not popular with the right wing but often surface as "solutions" in sound bytes.
Poland had a fully armed military and suffered the same fate. So much for that theory...
If I'm not wrong Vigilante denotes acting outside of the law as part of it's definition. Police forces are usually authorized and given extra duties and powers on top of their normal civilian rights. The Police can be a vigilante by acting beyond the limits set by the law, but they do not otherwise fit as a vigilante.
For anyone still following this story in here and who thinks banning guns will magically make us all safer, I have a question.
We'll skip over the fact the suspects appear to have Middle Eastern ties as we don't yet know their motivation behind the event. They purchased all of the firearms legally and used them successfully to injure and / or kill a lot of people. It does appear, however, the high-capacity magazines they utilized are already illegal ( and therefore banned ) in the State of California. So the idea of merely enacting new / more laws or banning a thing only goes to show that those who plan on mass-murder, really don't put a lot of thought ( or concern ) into what other laws they may be breaking while committing whatever atrocity they've planned.
Of particular interest to me is the fact that they also had manufactured about a dozen explosive devices they had planned on using as well. ( Last I checked, the possession and / or manufacture of explosive devices are quite illegal, as is murder, but that goes without saying. )
So, for those who believe that banning guns will fix our " mass violence " problem, how do you apply that same logic to the fact that, while banned already, these two showed up with high-capacity magazines and a dozen explosives and it is only through sheer luck, incompetence or a change of heart that the explosives did not detonate leading to even greater carnage.
Head over to everyone's favorite part of the planet, the Middle East, and you get to see what explosives are really capable of when you get serious about causing mayhem on the higher end of the scale. ( Pretty sure possessing / manufacturing explosives over there is just as illegal and banned as it is here, yet seems to almost be a daily occurrence. )
So, again, I have to ask. Other than being more security theater and a feel-good law, what would the removal of guns from the equation actually do to prevent the next psychopath, lone wolf or Call of Duty inspired terrorist wannabes from killing a bunch of people when they'll simply switch to other, very much proven to be effective, methods of violence delivery ?
Well, in that case I suggest you wake up to the reality on the ground today. There are bad folks out there, poverty or not.
We live in a world where mass shootings are a reality and it's been this way for decades. I don't see that changing in the future, and no amount of welfare, law passing or hand wringing is going to change the reality. There are bad people in the world, crazy killers, hardened terrorists and more, and there is no law you can pass that will prevent them from being successful in their quest to acquire arms and kill innocent non-combatant bystanders.
We need to realize the truth here and deal with reality and stop this foolish emotional based reactionary garbage. It's time to start realizing that the primary responsibility for our own security rests with each individual being ready and able to defend their own, unencumbered by stupid laws that create "gun free zones" or prevent law abiding citizens from carrying firearms if they decide to.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Nice technical report from the police there, they had "long" guns. Were they also really big and scary?
the cia and mossad
good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns.
I don't know about that. One thing I do know is that a good woman with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun: Guard saved untold lives, officials say
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Mass shootings aren't quite the same level of reality elsewhere in the developed world. Hell that's an understatement. The per-capita population excuse for discrepancy doesn't hold any water. Offenders aren't "just bad" by and large, and certainly terrorism of the Islamic variety account for a small fraction of occurrences in the U.S. annually, let alone firearm homicide which apparently doesn't matter enough because it disproportionately affects those in impoverished areas. I don't see the advantage of shrugging at the 355 count and just accepting this as "reality" going forward. It seems people would rather keep on pretending nothing can be done as if no sacrifice is necessary.
Would the American Revolutionary War been started and won if the populace did not have guns?
We are a society in transition. Ancient systems of belief are failing. These were the (weak) basis of our (crude) morality, yet are unsupported by evidence. We need a new basis for absolute moral principles. Democracy is a threat to the stability of society because ethics can no more be decided democratically than can scientific matters. Utilitarianism that denies individuals and tries to optimize statistical parameters on society, including by the use of mass coercion and even war produces large numbers of disenfranchised who's individual suffering is ignored and who have no legal recourse. And we wonder why so many people snap. Idiots!
I live in a state with a lot of guns but not that much in the way of mass shootings (we were one of five states in 2015 without a mass shooting though there's still several weeks left). I live about 1/4 mile from a gun store. I don't own a gun nor have I ever fired one. But the prevalence of guns here seems to encourage criminals to commit their crimes in other states that have very restrictive gun laws so I seem to get some benefit from other people owning guns.
We have had some problems with gangs moving into the state and a growing part of the population buying and using drugs, with a huge surge of deaths and hospitalizations from overdoses but the state to me feels very safe. Our kids went to a university in a neighboring state in a city with a lot of gun crime despite the state having some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Two people were shot to death in a home invasion three blocks from their apartment and there was lots of gun crime there. The difference was the socio-economic situation in that city (median household income was under $40K). There was a well-known documentary on the city and its drug users several years ago.
The most recent terrorist attack in the area was the Boston Marathon bombings and only a few people died thanks to the outstanding hospitals in the area, the training and drills for terrorist attacks and the logistics management that has been setup with emergency services to get people to medical care as fast as possible. Those attacks were done with crude IEDs but the terrorists also had a gun that they had borrowed from a friend (he was recently sentenced) and they killed an MIT officer and stole his weapon and ended up in a shootout with police in a nearby city in a residential neighborhood where the police felt outgunned.
Why is the media failing to report on the other mass shooting that occurred on the same day in Georgia? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/
If certain people can be reliably be determined to be prone to irresponsible use of guns - or for that matter, for anything, then it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to want to limit their access.
So, the Pre-Crime Department? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Clearly Jihadism is at work here, to think anything else is to be willfully delusional.
The premise that "gun control would have stopped this" is a completely ignorant one.
This man had outside support and would have been able to procur weapons of any sort. He had been in contact with persons being watched by the FBI (gee, thanks FBI, nice work protecting the public!) as known terrorists. Despite any legality or embargo he would have carried it out.
This was an act of organized "terror" (read: islamic mafia); any law would not have mattered.
To claim that one of them is because it will prevent tyranny by one's own government in the modern era is totally fucking batshit insane.
That you think this way about people with those concerns is worrisome as well. I hope that someone is always concerned and considering it a possibility regardless of what you think our era is incapable of.
What is the purpose of this gun?
http://www.gunauction.com/buy/...
Perhaps we should put all religious into a mental health facilities. They are, by definition, believers in magical beings and many hear voices...
Stop with the gun control nonsense and spin attempts. Pretty much this exact thing happens in Paris a few weeks ago (on only a slightly larger scale) and people are spewing on about terrorism for weeks on end.
Please call this what it is. A terrorist attack occurred in California this week.
If someone farts in another country, the media shouts 'terrorism'. Why did it take a week or so for the media to call this a terrorist event? Were they waiting for the government to OK it? Was the media being discreet? Since when does the media wait for confirmation on anything? Might it be because with all of the invasions of your privacy, no government department really knows what's going on? Admitting this was a terrorist attack is admitting failure of the invasion of your privacy. This isn't a gun control issue, unfortunately. Wish it was but it's not. Sandy Hook was, this isn't. Just as the FBI and Homeland Security lie to us about how they've quashed events like this, this single event proves that the billions spent on invading your privacy didn't do sh*t. Money out the window while basic, standard policing should have intercepted the terrorists and prevented this event.
> Isn't it time to ban *ISLAM*?
1. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
2. This sets a precedent down a dangerous slippery slope -- _who_ determines _what_ is acceptable or not?
3. The problem is The Silent Majority"
4. Cars kill more people then guns but we don't ban cars simply because a few idiots don't know how to respect other's property or life.
**Education** and/or Name-and-Shame is the proper solution.
i.e. Scroll down to:
* http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
All this will lead to only one thing total electronic monitoring in America and such developed countries with compulsory tracking implants in every citizen and immigrant.
Bad guys can be prevented from having guns. Let's do that.
Your position is exactly my position. I think we should lower the threshold on which guns we allow. We already ban a lot of guns, I'd like to just bad some more. In fact I don't even think we need to ban them, it would be good enough to keep them locked in armories (shooting ranges, militia headquarters, hunting clubs).
"Wanna know why"
Yeah, it's because police stations and shooting ranges and gun stores are 0.05% of places. Less, in fact.
"You won't hear about it in the national media because there is a [conspiracy against me]"
Uh huh. Yeah, the whole world is trying to keep you down, AC.
Oh, I see you read the Washington Post. Good for you!
Look at that list. It has 10 events on it and it covers 19 years. Meanwhile, we've had 355 mass shootings this year. Case closed, the incidence of people protecting themselves with guns is practically zero. It's a fantasy.
By doing what, going and trying to shoot up a crowd, and seeing if I can get away from the scene before someone shoots me? I don't need to do that test, hundreds of others have already done it for me this year alone.
Whoa golly! Too bad someone didn't prevent that gangmember from having a gun! Someone should do something about that!