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."
But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.
Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.
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.
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.
I'm happy the cops here have guns
You sound white.
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.
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
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.
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