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."
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
But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.
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"
Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.
It depends on the people, I would think. Lone nuts with a grudge are probably so delusional it won't stop them. Organised terrorist groups might be deterred, but then again, the guys in France didn't seem too worried about the inevitable shoot out, and came prepared with suicide vests. Alternatively, they could just change tactics and go for bombs like the Boston Marathon bombers did. Not much good being armed will be when a nail bomb blows up ten feet away from you.
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.
The reality is that we can't prevent all mass killings. Even countries like China and Iran, with incredibly restrictive gun laws, still suffer terrorist attacks.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Just don't click on the submission if you're not interested. Posts like this reveal your narcissism.
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Once we find out their race and religion we'll be able to make the distinction.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
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.
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-...
American "gun control" laws are the equivalent of dumping a coffee cup on a forest fire. An actual gun control law is what was passed in Australia, which worked pretty much as intended. Which even suggesting in the US would probably cause another civil war. And there is a huge part of the problem.
This is how far America has come? 14 dead is no longer considered a "mass" shooting, just a plain old everyday event?
"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.
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.
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.
The definition of a mass shooting is an event where 3 or more people are shot.
We should do it by total weight, instead.
I'm sure that worked in France.
In 2013, the US had 3.55 gun homicides per 100k residents. France had 0.22. That's 94% less. So whatever France is doing seems to work pretty well.
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.
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
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
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.
I'm happy the cops here have guns
You sound white.
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.
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.
If these are actual AK-47s, they're considered Assault Weapons under California Law and, if unregistered, are illegal. They were banned by name in 1989.
If they're AK-47 "clones" (since AK-47 is an actual trade name, not a rifle description), then out of the box, they meet the Assault Weapon criteria established in the 2000 ban, and must have been registered at that time, or they're illegal.
To have a legal, modern rifle based on the AK-47 platform, they must remove specific features that make them an Assault Weapon. Typically this is done by mounting a 10 round magazine in a fashion that can only be removed by a tool.
If they're using a modern, AK-47 pattern rifle, with removable, 30 round magazines, the rifles are illegal, and the magazines are likely illegal (magazines greater than 10 rounds were grandfathered in in the year 2000, after than they're illegal to purchase or manufacture). Rifles like this are banned already in California.
So, very likely this attack was perpetrated using illegal rifles and magazines.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Chuckle. Because being in compliance with the law is certainly at the top of any mass killers list :D
Donald Trump knows how to make 11 million living, breathing Mexicans 'go away'. I'm sure he can get rid of a few hundred million guns...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Or you can compare one nation against itself, before and after. Of course, that would require you to be intellectually honest.
I'll skip the fallacies and go straight to the factual errors.
We don't need 250 million guns.
Excessive hyperbole.
310 million civil firearms in the USA in 2009
civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Excessive hyperbole.
355 mass shootings this year so far.
On the other hand
There are more criminals than cops
I was surprised but that one hods true: In 2008, 1.2M police officers vs. 2.4M incarcerated people. To put in perspective, USA represents 4.4% of the world's population and 24.7% of the world's incarcerated population.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
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
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
I'd be curious as t how many mass shootings have ever actually been met with resistance by armed citizens (not police or other armed security types). I got this list from the Washington Post, which the writer intentionally excluded off duty police our soldiers from (I'm not sure if that's fair or not):
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I think having armed citizens might prevent some, but probably not all mass shootings. I think this idea that just blindly adding more guns into the mix is just going to make things safer seems a leap without a good deal of evidence behind that.
Also consider that, no matter how distressing mass shootings are (which, I suppose, is the point why these people do them), they make up only a tiny percentage of gun crimes in America.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] 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?
Low.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty to protect you.
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.
There have been multiple studies on this. The majority conclude that the firearms laws of 1997 had no affect on homicide by firearm rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We currently have more firearms in Australia than before the buyback in 1997 (I don't know the comparative rates though). Either way, ownership rates dropped precipitously in 1997, and as the homicide rate by firearm continued it's already established downward trend (a fairly linear trend starting well before 1997) the ownership rate has climbed.
Australia has had multiple mass shootings and other mass murders since 1997 (you often hear claims Australia has not had any).
New Zealand is the best example of sensible firearms laws. You could practically use them as a control group against Australia's too stringent laws. Most importantly, they have a lower homicide rate by firearms than Australia, and a lower overall homicide rate than Australia.
New Zealand have not restricted semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, or particular firearm calibers. License periods are longer, and there are fewer registration requirements for firearms.
California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here. I seriously doubt adding an insurance requirement would have stopped this.
"We should be doing the same for guns at a minimum."
California already requires a license, with an associated test to purchase a firearm. The license is called a Firearms Safety Certificate. It has been required here for years.
The license needs to be renewed every five years, and you must pass the test again in order to renew.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fs...
It used to be called the HSC for handguns, but a few years back they changed it to the FSC for all firearms.
" If your gun is stolen and used in a crime you would share in the liability, - especially if your gun was not stored in a safe manor. "
Safe storage in a secure container is the law here. It is a misdemeanour with loss of firearms rights for 10 years if you are caught not storing it correctly. Additionally you are liable for any crime that was caused by your firearm if it was not stored properly and an unauthorized individual got a hold of it.
"A gun should have a title associated with it that gets transferred even in the event of a private sale"
All guns must have a serial number on the frame. The serial number is registered to the owner and the registration is transferred even with a "private sale", inheritance, or any other legal transfer.
As an aside, there are no "private sales" in Californa. All sales must go through a licensed gun store. Even gun shows.
The only exception to this is "Curio and Relic" firearms, meaning the gun 50+ years old, and they have to be on a list designating them as such. Usually to get on this list it means they no longer make ammo for the gun. Last time I looked, there was only a handful of times a C&R firearm was used in a crime since they time they started keeping records.
"gun dealerships should be expected to perform due diligence before selling anyone a gun"
California requires a background check on all persons, they must also wait 10 days and posses a valid FSC before taking possession of a firearm. The purchaser must show two forms of ID, one must be a California state ID (or driver license) the other must have your address on it. The address must match your ID. California also requires a safe handling demonstration where the buyer must show they know how to safely load, unload, and operate the safety of the firearm they wish to purchase. The firearm shop is expected to do these checks.
The owner of the gun shop faces criminal liability (meaning go to jail, not just fines) if the shop does not follow the law. Some gun shops were shut down in the southern part of the state recently due to the owner being "not good".
"More to your point, certain kinds of mental illness would lead to the loss of gun licensure and if your mentally ill son shoots up a mall with your guns, you will be held responsible. "
This is already law here. A 5150 (going nuts and being admitted to the hospital for observation) results in an automatic 10-year loss of guns rights.
The state department of justice has a group called APPS, (that had some growing pains when they first started) that goes out and confiscates the firearms of people who were 5150ed before they get out of the hospital.
Any persons who provides a firearm to an ineligable person is guilty of a felony. If you give a gun to your crazy kid and the cops find out then you go to jail, even if your crazy kid didn't shoot up the mall.
More firearms laws won't fix this. All they will do is annoy the folks that have firearms as their hobby.
We need a culture change where crazy people don't feel that killing a bunch of people is the solution to their problems.
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
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:
False conclusion. The data can't reveal the claimed relationship.
Firstly I'm not actually arguing that Australia's gun laws aren't too strict. As a competitive pistol shooter they are seriously annoying around things like the number of shoots per pistol. Especially since I like to use different 22s for different comps and this means I have to do a stupid number of matches a year to be compliant. I also have a pistol that can be chambered for two different rounds so it counts as two separate pistols for compliance (BLERGH).
That said this whole thing started with a comment about comparing the US to Mexico. Mexico is fucked up in all kind of ways that will skew crime figures an absolute mile. I would be kinda depressed if I was living in a first world country and trying to use a developing country as a way of arguing my system was ok. Australia does not have its system perfect, and whether it made a difference is always arguable because we don't know what Australia would look like without the laws.
In the end the US has a crazy level of gun violence. That gun violence might just be a symptom of a society that has issues, or it might be an issue with firearms. I think, though, that there are limited arguments against making it harder for guns to end up in the black market, or making it harder for people to own guns. Christ they are talking about making them register flying a fucking drone, but making people register their guns and to have a valid reason to own them is too far?
As for Australia
Mass shootings in Australia since the 28-4-96 Port Arthur Massacre.
21-10-2002 - Huan Yun Xiang - 2 people killed at Monash university
29-4-2011 - Donato Anthony Corobo - 3 people killed, 3 injured
9-11-2014 - Geoff Hunt - Murder Suicide - Killed his wife and 3 kids before killing himself.
Please let me know if I've missed any.
There was a downward trend in firearm related homicides prior to 1996 but there is a significant vertical step in the trend line that occurred in 1996. See here - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
Licensed gun owners in Australia:
2001 - 764,518
2010 - 873,625
2012 - 730,000
Number of registered firearms per 100 of population
2012: 12.499
2010: 12.44
2001: 11.22
Except most people shot in the US are contained in pockets of festering inter-generational poverty. Account for that variable and the US is just as safe as Europe if not more so.
The organized mass shootings in France are notable for their level of organization and the fact that they weren't limited to impoverished housing estates.
For Slashdot reader, the danger of being shot is the same in the US as it is in Europe. Any hysteria to the contrary is just people allowing themselves to fall prey to media propaganda.
In one incident, France managed to instantly catch up to all of the recent shootings that the media actually cares about in the US.
If anything, the prospect of well organized mass shootings and suicide bombers makes France FAR more dangerous to the average Slashdot reader.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Bullshit! A long gun is:
- Difficult to conceal
- Much more powerful than a gun that isn't a long gun
- Much less powerful than crew served weaponry
- Not generally capable of projecting explosives at range
- Less able to be maneuvered at close range or in buildings
- More capable of punching through light cover
- Able to fire more powerful rounds, and at longer ranges, than other weapons
The long gun could be a rifle or shotgun. It's not obvious which from long distance glimpses, so to claim it's a "semi automatic rifle" might be wrong- it could be a shotgun.
It's tactically useful, it's descriptive, and unlike bullshit media fuckstick terms, it's *correct*. It's also common parlance among anyone who deals with guns.
Or you live in any developed country other than the USA...
True. But the sherrif that gave that information was used to the term "long gun" in his daily work conversations so he probably just used it naturally.
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
You will note that those gun free zones were within larger areas with easy availability of guns, and insufficient protection between the gun free and non gun free zones.
E.g. schools in Canada don't get so many gun shootings even though they are gun free. I.e. because Canada as a whole doesn't have easy availability of guns and protection between the US and Canada is strong. But they would if the only protection Canada had from American guns was a signboard with "gun free zone" printed on it with many exclamation signs.
So being gun free is not what encourages shootings- it is the porous border between gun free and non gun free zones.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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
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.