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.
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.
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, It was Ronnie Reagan who started shuttering mental heath facilities strictly to cut spending.
He used deplorable conditions within as an excuse. Living on the street so much more attuned to
freedom of expression and libertarian damages
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
It was a social center for the developmentally disabled. You think the developmentally disabled should be armed? Like in Texas?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
So you have the attackers running around causing carnage. Then you have a bunch of citizens trying to "help" take out the attackers. How do the citizens know who is an attacker and who is another good guy?
Armed US civilians have a track record of getting it wrong less often then police officers. Like by a factor of 5 1/2.
I can see carrying be useful if ...
We know all these things. And more. And the well-researched and legally-vetted (sometimes different) "correct" answers to a number of such questions.
Find an NRA-certified instructor. Take (first the "basic pistol" then) the "Personal Protection" classes. Then you'll know the answers, too.
I won't try to summarize the courses here. I'm not certified to give them (my wife is), and you're not paying me for them. They're inexpensive and only take a couple weekends or so.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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...
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
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.