Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14 (cnn.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-again dept.

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."

35 of 1,134 comments (clear)

  1. more guns needed by Chalex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:more guns needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was born in India. Some of the tightest gun control laws, similar to what the British have. There is no such thing as 'gun culture' in India. Assault weapons are impossible for civilian population to own (for instance, .223, .303, 7.62mm, these calibers are banned for civilian ownership), while cartridges of permitted firearms are difficult to come by, and expensive. Usually, assaults for robbery etc. are carried out using knives and fists and sticks and so on. But India does see at least a few mass casualty gun attacks by terrorists every year. And every few years, there is a 'terror spectacular' that creates headlines the world over. The left and the right will both trot out their tired ideas without taking any reality into account.

      Terrorism is a de facto accepted mode of warfare now. The West/Nato supports irregular warfare in Russia, Syria etc. based on whether that particular regime is strategically liked or not. Without taking into consideration the ideas of the people they are supporting.. The idea of a nation state itself is a fairly modern idea, compared to what the likes of ISIS and AlQaeda want. Yet, we replace modern entities with positively antediluvian entities. Even a communist state, or a military dictatorship like in NK is preferable to ISIS/AlQaeda. At least, you can talk to NK.. If someone in ISIS/Talbn/AlQ tries to reach a compromise with us, his followers will cut his head off.

      There are hundreds of thousands of foreign fighters in these places now.. whose only marketable skill is War. I am afraid, mass casualty gun attacks are here to stay and we will see some for years, punctuated by people going postal or attacks by people who are just plain nutjobs.

    2. Re:more guns needed by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Naw. About one in ten carrying concealed would do it.

      Line from a friend who was a union official: "We're a poor union. We only have one pistol. But you never know who has it checked out."

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re: more guns needed by unimacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course not, but that's a dozen fewer families grieving. Are you saying that somehow 2 dead is just as bad as 14? I'm sorry, while 2 dead is bad, 14 is clearly worse.

    4. Re:more guns needed by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... your solution might limit the number of people getting killed but won't eliminate the problem.

      Didn't claim it would eliminate the problem. But a gun-free zone didn't, either, did it? Nothing will make the world safe against pre-planned attacks by organized gangs of armed thugs (official or otherwise).

      But if you're trying to MINIMIZE the carnage - whether in general or just among the innocent - having armed good-guys sprinkled through the population is far more effective than disarming all the good-guys and presenting the bad-guys with a target-rich environment of helpless victims.

      This can be expected to:
        - reduce the number of incidents in the first place (because SOME of the bad guys are clueful enough to realize that making themselves the immediate target of an unknown number of self-appointed guardians is detrimental to their own interests, and will switch to softer targets or just find other things to do)
        - mitigate the incidents that DO occur - stopping them sooner, or even aborting them as they're getting under way.
        - stop future incidents perpetrated by the same people (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?)

      Criminology research tells us this expectation is actually what happens. Or you can just observe that essentially all the mass shootings in the last decades have been in gun-free zones - and some attempts have been aborted rapidly by armed - or otherwise gun-trained - citizens.

      "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - no matter how much the anti-gun spin-meisters would try to convince you otherwise.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:more guns needed by nytes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Carrying a gun in this state will get you arrested (or shot) by the first cop who sees it, and CCP's are pretty hard to come by (impossible to get in Los Angeles, despite court orders to issue them).

      You can be arrest for carrying a chair leg here. All the officer has to say is that you looked like you might hit someone with it.

      About the only lethal weapon you can legally carry here is a fingernail clipper.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    6. Re:more guns needed by moonlandingchap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... your solution might limit the number of people getting killed but won't eliminate the problem.

      Didn't claim it would eliminate the problem. But a gun-free zone didn't, either, did it? Nothing will make the world safe against pre-planned attacks by organized gangs of armed thugs (official or otherwise).

      But if you're trying to MINIMIZE the carnage - whether in general or just among the innocent - having armed good-guys sprinkled through the population is far more effective than disarming all the good-guys and presenting the bad-guys with a target-rich environment of helpless victims.

      This can be expected to: - reduce the number of incidents in the first place (because SOME of the bad guys are clueful enough to realize that making themselves the immediate target of an unknown number of self-appointed guardians is detrimental to their own interests, and will switch to softer targets or just find other things to do) - mitigate the incidents that DO occur - stopping them sooner, or even aborting them as they're getting under way. - stop future incidents perpetrated by the same people (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?)

      Criminology research tells us this expectation is actually what happens. Or you can just observe that essentially all the mass shootings in the last decades have been in gun-free zones - and some attempts have been aborted rapidly by armed - or otherwise gun-trained - citizens.

      "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - no matter how much the anti-gun spin-meisters would try to convince you otherwise.

      11000+ gun related deaths a year in the states, in France there is well under 100 a year (this year will be a blip in the stats) due to gun control. By the time they have 11000 people dead from guns the states will have lost 1.2 million people to guns. Yeah guns make it safer, yeehaa!

      The reason a gun free zone didn't work is because it was a tiny island of about 100x100 yards and surrounded by an entire nation of gun weilding people who fail to see that killing machines are not a very good way to keep people safe. There are only 3 other countries in the world with more gun deaths than the states, 3! Afghanistan, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2014 the USA had almost 10x the gun deaths of the entire of Europe, including Iceland.

      The argument that guns make you safer, is of course just not true. The motivation for repeating the myth "Guns make you safer" is unclear, but at least anyone with a rational mind can see it's at least not the case.

  2. Cue the flamewar... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The debate over such shootings rages every time (ban guns, stop banning guns, make more gun-free zones, have fewer gun-free zones, teach everyone to shoot and give out free guns, have better mental health care, etc, Did I miss anything?).

    But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.

    1. Re:Cue the flamewar... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever your opinions on gun control are, we (the US) have managed to box ourselves into an unpleasant corner. There are way too many guns out there to have any effective method of restriction work. And way too many gun nuts.

      It really is an ugly situation. Nobody is going to win here.

      Except the loonies and terrorists.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Cue the flamewar... by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whatever your opinions on gun control are, we (the US) have managed to box ourselves into an unpleasant corner. There are way too many guns out there to have any effective method of restriction work. And way too many gun nuts.

      It really is an ugly situation. Nobody is going to win here.

      Except the loonies and terrorists.

      Australia used to have the same problem, but a conservative government managed to introduce gun restricts at the cost of the next election, and gun violence and accidents dropped sharply.

    3. Re:Cue the flamewar... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately our Republican's wouldn't do anything that would jeopardise an election.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:Cue the flamewar... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Separation of Church and State. There's fear that allowing same-sex marriage could result in people suing churches for refusing to perform them. Obviously, it would be a serious Constitutional violation if the courts did so, which should make those fears irrational, but the courts have been known to ignore the Constitution now and then, so maybe it isn't.

      The correct (morally, legally, ethically) solution is to ban all government recognition of marriage. Require a complete separation between religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies, and completely revoke churches' rights to perform the latter. This properly ensures that A. churches cannot be sued for refusing to perform a now-strictly-religious ceremony, and B. churches that wish to perform gay marriage ceremonies would be allowed to do so. It also ensures the same legal rights (tax-wise, for example) for all couples, regardless of whether they are same-sex, because those would be based on the civil union rather than the religious marriage.

      Like most political issues, there's no middle ground because both sides are arguing over one aspect of the issue when the real flaw is an entirely different aspect. Any solution that satisfies both sides must completely throw away all the existing assumptions and start from scratch. Otherwise, you end up with a solution that everyone is equally dissatisfied with, which is entirely the wrong way to govern a country.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Cue the flamewar... by jwdb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      Your grandmother may be a good shot, but does she have the reflexes to go with it? If she can't actually get a bead on a young, fast mugger before he gets within arm's range, then she's defenseless with or without her gun. You're probably younger, and therefore have those reflexes, but that means you probably can also defend yourself without having a gun, assuming your attacker doesn't have one either.

      Yes, if you make guns illegal, some criminals will still have guns, but it will be fewer. Gun control is not about the rich with bodyguards, it's about the rest of us not wanting to get shot in anger by some hothead, by accident by a child, or by some nut who never should have been given a weapon. That other forms of violent crime will go up is beside the point, as you're still more likely to survive a beating than a shooting, and a criminal can only beat one person at a time.

    6. Re:Cue the flamewar... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except during that timeframe Australia grew from 18 millions to 24 millions. So that's 35% reduction. Meanwhile US grew only slightly from 274 millions to 319 millions.

      Also, Australia is a poor example - it has never had significant gun-related violence.

    7. Re:Cue the flamewar... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I as a regular Joe don't care if drug dealers are killing each other. I also don't care as much if some dysfunctional family member kills their immediate relations. Crimes of passion are something I can have some input into.
      What I do care about is some random nutter killing me while I'm minding my own business.
      So I'm not sure if those stats are measured, but I'm betting that random homicides, the type where the victim had no prior relationship with the offender, are a lot higher in the US than anywhere else.
      In Australia, I believe the number of random mass shootings (4 or more victims) since 1997 is zero.

    8. Re:Cue the flamewar... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You also have to consider that the rate of decline is a curve. As the murder rate gets lower the rate of decline slows, because it gets harder to eliminate the rarer situations that lead to it. When you have a murder rate as high as the US, there are lots of fairly easy and effective things you can do to reduce it, which Australia has already done and can't benefit from again.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Gun Control by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
  4. Re: Another reason to ban rifles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.

  5. Business is Booming by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re: Business is Booming by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you are hoping that people who try to defend themselves are shot simply because they don't fit your ideology. It's nice knowing what people like you think of the value of human life. Must be why you are so quick to stand on corpses before they are even cold to give your terrible message.

    2. Re:Business is Booming by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who conceal carry tend to practice regularly, way more than cops

      Also civilian gun owners in general. Private owners tend to practice a lot, until they're confident in their own skills. Police tend to practice the minimum required by their forces - which don't want to pay for copy time on the line when they could be paying them to write tickets. Police have a lot of other stuff to be trained in, too, and I hear that only one cop in two actually has to FIRE his gun even once per career in an actual confrontation.

      Ever notice that police never practice at the range at the same time civilians are there? That's because they're ROTTEN by comparison, and it embarrasses them and their departments.

      and are much less likely to act in a situation than a police officer, and there are records to prove it.

      And when they do, and end up firing, they're MUCH less likely t shoot someone they shouldn't have. The last figures I saw (a few year ago) had the cops about 5 1/2 times more likely, when shooting, to shoot someone they shouldn't. It's not law of small numbers, either, since civilians good-shoot substantially more crookies than cops.

      In fairness to cops, they generally arrive on the scene after things have gotten out of hand and have to figure out who's at fault, while civilians involved in defence shootings were usually there from the start and have a really good idea who's who. Civilians also usually get to bail out when things get out of hand, but cops usually have to stay there and get it under control, despite the poor information available at the time.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  6. Re:Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this ends up being a verified political terrorist attack in the vein of Paris, it will get real ugly around here.

    But it seems like an unlikely choice for a political attack -- no real symbolism, and not even really much of a government symbol. I would expect anti-western terrorists to attack a mall or some other symbol of decadence -- and to die doing it, right down to the explosive vests.

    It almost seems like a gang hit or some other kind of targeted killing, considering the attackers drove away. There's a lot more to this story than a lunatic with a gun or some kind of jihad.

  7. Re:14 is bad, but doesn't seem 'mass' by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is how far America has come? 14 dead is no longer considered a "mass" shooting, just a plain old everyday event?

  8. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Actually, moron"

    Let me stop you there as you are being moronic. You seem to understand the volume of guns but seem to think something can magically make them go away? Not going to happen. 3d printed guns? Zip guns? And the fact that there are, as you say, 250 million proper guns.

    Think about this -- with reasonable care, guns last centuries. There are multitudes of 17th century guns that can still fire -- never mind the NEW stuff.

    I think you need to find a different solution.

  9. Well then clearly... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AK-47 Type meaning "scary" rifle that is functionally the same as a hunting rifle, but "Scary" looking.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  11. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm happy the cops here have guns;

    He isn't against guns. He is only against civilians having guns. He also doesn't understand the reason for Amendment #2 is precisely because government tyrants love their own guns.

    In a nutshell, he is the reason I want to have guns.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  12. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence. I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."

    We don't need 250 million guns. We need less guns. I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.

    Ban guns.

    That pesky 2nd amendment will need to be changed before you can just go out and collect all the guns... And don't be fooled, you will need to collect ALL of them... But I fear that your biggest obstacle will be modifying the constitution and until you do, NOTHING will really change here, Private ownership of guns will continue.

    Assuming you get the constitution changed and remove the 2nd amendment, Welcome to Utopia. (NOT!).. Sure, some will willingly turn in their weapons once you get the laws changed, but others will not. What are you going to do? Grab the jack boots and literally search every nook and cranny of everybody's homes, cars, properties and persons.... Oh, wait, you are going to need to change that pesky constitution again and remove another couple of amendments....

    So, do you understand how your idea is naïve and unworkable? How you will need to trample on the vary legal foundations of the country? How stupid this whole idea of yours really is?

    I'm open to debate what we can do about this kind of craziness, but eliminating all guns is a non-starter. It's not possible with our current constitutional framework. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the problem and there is evidence it actually makes the situation worse.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm happy the cops here have guns

    You sound white.

  14. Re: Another reason to ban rifles by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And Mexico had more than that, amd they have gun laws. The US has always been more violent. Blame the drug war, which is where the killings come from.

  15. Re: Another reason to ban rifles by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or you can compare one nation against itself, before and after. Of course, that would require you to be intellectually honest.

  16. Re:Another reason to ban rifles by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.

    Your imagination doesn't match reality.

    Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.

    Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.

    When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?

    --

    Enigma

  17. Re:It was a "gun free zone" that got hit. Again. by CauseBy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:It was a "gun free zone" that got hit. Again. by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or you live in any developed country other than the USA...

  19. Re:speaking of war by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin