redsquirrel Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So I suppose that you concede that stating facts about Planned Parenthood (which has already been brought up in this thread a few times, so I'm not responsible for derailing) is also not inflammatory? Stating the facts about what exactly an abortion is, isn't inflammatory? I mean, if "magical life saving patriot wands" is plain and simple fact...? It is also possible to consider something to be inflammatory even if it isn't personally insulting. Again, a difficult concept for some, but entirely logical. The facts about the shooting at the Planned Parenthood are that a police officer, an Iraq war veteran and the wife of a soldier died. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The facts about the shooting at the Planned Parenthood are that a police officer, an Iraq war veteran and the wife of a soldier died. Yes, but there's a whole lot of inflammatory rhetoric going around, for example from Sadie on page 1 of this thread: Especially as 'innocent Christians' were given a pass when PP got terrorized. And in actuality, I was referring to the blanket condemnations from certain people and political persuasions of "inflammatory rhetoric" being the cause of that shooting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Press conference. Strange that they're not ruling out terrorism. A number of potential indicators? What? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Press conference. Strange that they're not ruling out terrorism. A number of potential indicators? What? They're trying to be careful instead of leaping to conclusions. Imagine that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm not a gun lover, gun nut, or whatever. I do recognize the right of citizens to own firearms. There are guns in our home not that I can remember the last time one was used. My dh is not a gun person either. I don't understand how it would work eliminating all guns leaving only the police and military armed. I'm not even sure I like that idea, and I'm not afraid of our government or into conspiracy theories. I usually fall on the liberal side. A well armed military/police force while citizens have no arms at all....I'm just not sure about that. Not that I think citizens could amass the type of weapons needed to take on our military if something unbelievable happened, like a military takeover. I need to think on that. That is a new suggestion for me. Plus, how in the world could all the guns already in existence in the country be collected. Here I am, a person not overly crazy about guns, imaging the government coming to my door and asking me (who has never had so much as a speeding ticket) to hand over all the firearms in my house. I suspect I wouldn't be too willing to do that. The people I know who own guns don't worry me in the least. Taking away their guns, or mine, isn't going to solve this problem Besides, there's more to all this violence than just guns being available. Yes, guns are an easy way to kill, but there are other serious problems going on here. This culture of violence for starters. I favor stricter gun laws, extensive background checks, and more education. I'm not sure why anyone needs to own an automatic weapon. For hunting? Protecting your home? No sarcasm; I really don't get that. I'm going to ask my sons-in-law their opinion since they both own guns, go shooting, and are probably what are called gun people. These shooting scare me. When the Oregon college shooting happened, I spent days wondering when the same was going to happen at the school where two of my dds and one son-in-law attend. Students are allowed to carry weapons on campus, but that really doesn't make me feel any safer. In my ideal world, no one would have guns, military, police, anyone. But I have to live in reality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So I suppose that you concede that stating facts about Planned Parenthood (which has already been brought up in this thread a few times, so I'm not responsible for derailing) is also not inflammatory? Stating the facts about what exactly an abortion is, isn't inflammatory? I mean, if "magical life saving patriot wands" is plain and simple fact...? It is also possible to consider something to be inflammatory even if it isn't personally insulting. Again, a difficult concept for some, but entirely logical. What in the world do abortions have to do with mass murderers? Unless you're trying to justify the actions of the PP shooter. Is that what you're saying here? I'm honestly confused by your argument. And yes, magical life-saving patriot wands are how the NRA and gun culture views guns. We could quibble over the adjectives, but that's the general idea when you have people crying that if only we had more guns, we could avoid all these shootings. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 They're trying to be careful instead of leaping to conclusions. Imagine that. I watched my dad give press conferences like this a few times as a kid. I think this police chief was lying through his teeth, I think he knows much more than the scant information he just released. I think it was terrorism, and they're either trying to figure out the extent of local involvement vs a tiny group or they're still trying to catch someone and don't want that suspect to know. I also think they're going to delay saying it's terrorism so as to limit fear among the public. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Two suspects--a male and a female--have been shot and killed by police. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Two suspects--a male and a female--have been shot and killed by police. And didn't CNN say they had a third suspect in custody? I swear I saw it go by on the screen at one point. ETA: Wait, now they're saying the third suspect is still in the apartment building? FFS, CNN. Edited December 3, 2015 by Mergath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So sorry this has happened :(Thinking of those who have been personally effected by it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 And didn't CNN say they had a third suspect in custody? I swear I saw it go by on the screen at one point. I did read they have a third person being detained, but it isn't clear whether the person was involved in the shootings. (Someone also threw explosives at some point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I did read they have a third person being detained, but it isn't clear whether the person was involved in the shootings. (Someone also threw explosives at some point.) Ahh, maybe that was what I saw. I don't know why I have CNN on at all- it's just speculation and "confusing, conflicting reports" as Anderson just said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The press conference said a third person who had been running away from one of the incidents has been detained, but it is not clear if they were just running for their life or if they were involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Just watched the news conference. Two suspects dead (one male, one female), a third in custody. But, they stressed that the third person may or may not be involved & they are still trying to determine that. He was apparently apprehended because he was running away from the scene. (Not sure if that is the same scene where the two suspects were killed or if they were referring to another scene.) ETA: I have been watching a link through this site: http://ktla.com/on-air/live-streaming/ Edited December 3, 2015 by Stacia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Ahh, maybe that was what I saw. I don't know why I have CNN on at all- it's just speculation and "confusing, conflicting reports" as Anderson just said. They used to be good, but they got rid of their investigative news department. Literally closed the department and the upgraded the graphics, holograms, and integrated more social media. Jon Stewart did a hilarious series of segments on this on the Daily Show a few years back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 They used to be good, but they got rid of their investigative news department. Literally closed the department and the upgraded the graphics, holograms, and integrated more social media. Jon Stewart did a hilarious series of segments on this on the Daily Show a few years back. I think I remember that. Weren't there some clips of Wolf standing in something that looked like a CNN holodeck? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Ahh, maybe that was what I saw. I don't know why I have CNN on at all- it's just speculation and "confusing, conflicting reports" as Anderson just said. NBCLA.com has been doing a decent job; as well as can be expected at least. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The US already has a huge number of legally-acquired guns in the hands of its citizens, all states allow concealed carry and most allow it for just about anyone, very few people are banned from buying or owning guns, and there are very few gun-free zones. Even in those gun-free zones, there are still often armed LEOs. The gun lobby has gotten almost exactly what it wants, but all those guns don't seem to have solved the problem we have. If we wanted more guns out there, we'd practically have to issue weapons to every household. It seems illogical to me to advocate for more weapons or less restrictive gun laws to solve this problem because that's what we already have and IT IS NOT WORKING. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think I remember that. Weren't there some clips of Wolf standing in something that looked like a CNN holodeck? Yes! There were several of those. Here's the first thing that popped up with google: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4d109s/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-investigating-investigative-journalism 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The US already has a huge number of legally-acquired guns in the hands of its citizens, all states allow concealed carry and most allow it for just about anyone, very few people are banned from buying or owning guns, and there are very few gun-free zones. Even in those gun-free zones, there are still often armed LEOs. The gun lobby has gotten almost exactly what it wants, but all those guns don't seem to have solved the problem we have. If we wanted more guns out there, we'd practically have to issue weapons to every household. It seems illogical to me to advocate for more weapons or less restrictive gun laws to solve this problem because that's what we already have and IT IS NOT WORKING. Uh... Didn't California ban concealed carry recently? It was a big topic on the season ender of Bill Maher a few weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Uh... Didn't California ban concealed carry recently? It was a big topic on the season ender of Bill Maher a few weeks ago. Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Does not look like one person ran amok. The news we are hearing says they do not rule out some form of terrorism as the perpetrators wore combat gear and there were evidently other indications. Edited December 3, 2015 by Liz CA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nope. Okay, it was only on college and university campuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Ugh. The news coverage in the radio is crap. (I'm sitting in a van waiting for my kid as per usual these days.) This moron says "well it could be terrorism I mean the name released is a foreign name" Wth is a foreign name in the USA? It could be terrorism bc there's been a mass shooting. Smh 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I watched my dad give press conferences like this a few times as a kid. I think this police chief was lying through his teeth, I think he knows much more than the scant information he just released. I think it was terrorism, and they're either trying to figure out the extent of local involvement vs a tiny group or they're still trying to catch someone and don't want that suspect to know. I also think they're going to delay saying it's terrorism so as to limit fear among the public. ? It was obviously terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Something is wrong in this world. I don't know what it is. The pure evil of shooting up a school, a kindergarten, a holiday party is beyond my comprehension. The only think I do know is that when evil like this is so common in a society, it is our responsibility to make sure that it is difficult for evil to get the tools it needs to create the carnage it wants to create. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestavern Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Just read that one of the suspects was at the party at the facility. There was an altercation. He left and came back with one? Two? Others and carried out the shooting. Eta this is info from a law enforcement official but has not been confirmed. Edited December 3, 2015 by whitestavern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerileanne99 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 A lot of places do hire 'ex-cops' but there are also a lot of retired cops who want to actually retire and not have to deal with any more of that crap. There simply aren't enough to go around. It isn't the solution. And how much extra money do school systems and hospitals and every single workplace have to pay several people to work around the clock, And let's not forget In the past couple years we have had mass shootings at military bases. I mean, one would think there would be a whole lot of armed people, stead and calm under fire, in those situations. And the death toll was still high. http://www.newsweek.com/second-shooting-two-days-mississippi-military-base-camp-shelby-359976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Fort_Hood_shooting http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/opinions/bergen-chattanooga-shooting/ Here was a police officer shot coming out of the police station http://fox40.com/2015/11/19/california-officer-shot-dead-in-police-station-lot/ and here's a guy who over powered the police officer and shot her and two other officers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/gloucester-township-shooting_n_2375299.html so being used to guns and training doesn't guarantee that you will react well ITA...and just because you are 'ex-military' or the like does not particularly mean that you should be entrusted with a gun to randomly 'protect and serve.' Sorry. I wish it were that easy. But as someone who actually served in the Army I can personally guarantee that this should NOT be a stamp of approval to carry a gun. There are soldiers I would have given my life for...and dumb soldiers who had no business being handed a weapon. Not PC, I know. But the Army is just a slice of humanity. A giant bell curve. And...even the best of the best, the most-highly trained, are human! I promise, every one of them makes mistakes. Arming them in a civilian situation is not the solution. Ensuring that safety is a priority, where arming them is a last resort? they deserve it! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenInWis Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Just read that one of the suspects was at the party at the facility. There was an altercation. He left and came back with one? Two? Others and carried out the shooting. Eta this is info from a law enforcement official but has not been confirmed. Well... press conference about an hour ago said that they didn't know if the person who left was one who came back. To me, it seems rather unlikely, given that the shooters were wearing tactical gear. Wouldn't their faces have been covered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well... press conference about an hour ago said that they didn't know if the person who left was one who came back. To me, it seems rather unlikely, given that the shooters were wearing tactical gear. Wouldn't their faces have been covered? This was on the BBC News website: The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, say investigators believe the suspects were known to those targeted. "Investigators believe there were three gunmen and one of them had worked at the facility and recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials," the New York Times reports, adding a witness said despite a face covering, one sounded and appeared very similar to the employee who had left earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Well... press conference about an hour ago said that they didn't know if the person who left was one who came back. To me, it seems rather unlikely, given that the shooters were wearing tactical gear. Wouldn't their faces have been covered? Not to mention that I really can't imagine some guy going up to a couple of his friends and being like, "This guy at this party totally pissed me off. Let's get our AK-47s and our body armor and go murder everyone there." And weren't they throwing pipe bombs out of the SUV at the police? This seems like way more than a fight at a party. ETA: Just saw Corraleno's update. Jeez. Mass murder over a work dispute? I have no words. Edited December 3, 2015 by Mergath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 According to the LA Times, the primary suspect, Syed Farook, worked for the San Bernadino County public health department, and the shooting occurred at an event for that department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well, maybe what we got here is a standard issue American workplace shooting. Nothing to see here, it's practically boring. And I know workplace shootings happen elsewhere, but we are the best at it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenInWis Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) never mind. Edited December 3, 2015 by ColleenInWis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? "What good would more laws do?" sounds like a purely hypothetical question. But since laws vary by state and by country and through time, we can ask an even better question, "what good IS BEING DONE by more laws?" The US states with tighter gun control laws have less gun crime: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html Gun accessibility is directly correlated to homicide rate, across states and across countries: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ Gun accessibility is directly correlated to suicide rate: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/ Safe storage laws reduce accidental gun deaths: https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/Safe%20Storage.pdf When gun restrictions are enacted, homicide goes down: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. We can't stop the madness, but we could reduce it drastically. We have simply chosen not to. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-average-every-day-records-show.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news How Often Do Mass Shootings Occur? On Average, Every Day, Records Show More than one a day. That is how often, on average, shootings that left four or more people injured or dead occurred in the United States this year, according to compilations of episodes derived from news reports. . . . It is impossible to know whether the number of such shootings has risen in recent years because the databases go back only a couple of years. More data is available for mass shootings calculated by a different standard, one used by congressional researchers and other experts who study mass killings: four or more dead. But experts fiercely debate whether mass shootings by that more deadly standard have remained level or ticked up slightly in recent years. . . . Two databases that track mass shootings that leave four or more dead or injured — shootingtracker.com and gunviolencearchive.org — depend on news accounts and are not official. Nonetheless, they give an indication of the widespread nature of such episodes. Since January, there have been at least 354 such cases in about 220 cities in 47 states, shootings, according to shootingtracker.com. . . In November, six people were killed, five of them shot to death at a campsite in East Texas; 17 people were wounded in a shootout as a crowd watched the filming of a music video in New Orleans; and four died, including twin 5-month-old babies, in an episode of domestic violence in Jacksonville, Fla. So far this week, five people were wounded in a Sunday morning shooting in Kankakee, Ill., and another shooting Wednesday, before the San Bernardino attack, left one woman dead and three men injured in Savannah, Ga. Ted Alcorn, the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control, said the shootings with multiple victims were a tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America. “You have 14 people dead in California, and that’s a horrible tragedy,†he said. “But likely 88 other people died today from gun violence in the United States.†. . . In studying shootings that left four or more dead from 2009 to mid-2015, his organization found certain patterns. In only 11 percent of cases did medical, school or legal authorities note signs of mental illness in the gunmen before the attack, the organization said. Domestic violence figured strongly: In 57 percent of the cases, the victims included a current or former intimate partner or family member of the shooter. Half of all victims were women. More than two-thirds of the shootings took place in private residences; about 28 percent occurred in public spaces, the study found. . . . More than 60 percent of the attackers were not prohibited from possessing guns before for prior felonies or other reasons. But the study still found there was less likelihood of mass killings in states that require background checks for handgun sales than in states that do not — and even less chance of shootings by people who were prohibited by law from possessing firearms. . . . While the numbers shift from year to year, there has been no discernible trend in the numbers or in the characteristics of the assailants, said Professor Fox, who is also a co-author of “Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.†“The only increase has been in fear, and in the perception of an increase,†he said. “A lot of that has been because of the nature of media coverage. In the ’70s and ’80s, we didn’t hear about it on the Internet — because there was no Internet — and we didn’t have cable news channels that would devote 24 hours of coverage.†. . . The shooting in San Bernardino was unlike nearly every other shooting of its type in the United States in the past decade and a half because it involved more than one gunman and the suspects managed to flee the scene. Just two of 160 active shooter episodes from 2000 to 2013 had more than one gunman, according to a 2014 report released by the F.B.I. Only 25 of the gunmen got away without being arrested or killed, or committing suicide. Edited December 3, 2015 by redsquirrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 These incidents succeed in dividing us. Divide and conquer. What good does it do for us to attack each other? Let's stop being suckers. This is exactly what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Well, maybe what we got here is a standard issue American workplace shooting. Nothing to see here, it's practically boring. And I know workplace shootings happen elsewhere, but we are the best at it. That was my initial thought, to be honest. That's what it sounds like.... but.... if I get all of a sudden pissed at my coworkers, I may go out to my car and have a gun in the glove compartment or something. I'm unlikely to have two accomplices and a pipe bomb or two (supposedly thrown at police) and whatever.... unless these are also coworkers (which as far as I know, nobody knows.) So, i don't know. The target (for lack of a better word) doesn't make sense as a terrorist crime. It's very confusing and I hope there are answers.... although those answers will do nothing to comfort the families of the victims. Praying that by the time my kids are older, these mass shootings, domestic violence homicides, terrorist attacks, and the likes will all be a thing of the past. Not sure how we'll get there, though. :( Edited December 3, 2015 by umsami 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 That was my initial thought, to be honest. That's what it sounds like.... but.... if I get all of a sudden pissed at my coworkers, I may go out to my car and have a gun in the glove compartment or something. I'm unlikely to have two accomplices and a pipe bomb or two (supposedly thrown at police) and whatever.... unless these are also coworkers (which as far as I know, nobody knows.) So, i don't know. The target (for lack of a better word) doesn't make sense as a terrorist crime. It's very confusing and I hope there are answers.... although those answers will do nothing to comfort the families of the victims. Praying that by the time my kids are older, these mass shootings, domestic violence homicides, terrorist attacks, and the likes will all be a thing of the past. Not sure how we'll get there, though. :( Unfortunately, I don't think it's that far fetched these days. At least, according to what I see on my FB feeds. A FB friend the other day posted how their vehicle was broken into and a cross bow, several rifles, a handgun, and lots of ammo were stolen. No one seemed to think it weird there was so much fire power in the vehicle. I see many posts recently about storing up and the gear included and it all seems to be so overboard. I definitely think there is a segment of the population that has this kind of gear on hand and, when provoked, can just go right out and do serious damage. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Uh... Didn't California ban concealed carry recently? It was a big topic on the season ender of Bill Maher a few weeks ago. Nope, though some counties are bigger PITAs about issuing CCW permits than others (e.g. some counties require you to prove that your life is in imminent danger to get one, which is just so unconstitutional, but we are in California, so...). Here's what I think. I think gun-shaming contributes to violence and leads to more fatalities. These shootings are so deadly because the intended victims cannot defend themselves. They were all sitting ducks and the building was a "soft target" for those looking to do harm because it was widely know that they were defenseless. I am NOT blaming the victims, so don't even go there. I am saying that our culture's growing anti-gun sentiment and BS gun-free zones made the murderers' jobs a whole lot easier. Let's not HELP people kill others by guilting or outright legislating millions of people into being defenseless. Does anyone know what the SB county policy is for non-law enforcement employees conceal carrying guns? Edited December 3, 2015 by shinyhappypeople 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nope, though some counties are bigger PITAs about issuing CCW permits than others (e.g. some counties require you to prove that your life is in imminent danger to get one, which is just so unconstitutional, but we are in California, so...). Here's what I think. I think gun-shaming contributes to violence and leads to more fatalities. These shootings are so deadly because the intended victims cannot defend themselves. They were all sitting ducks and the building was a "soft target" for those looking to do harm because it was widely know that they were defenseless. I am NOT blaming the victims, so don't even go there. I am saying that our culture's growing anti-gun sentiment and BS gun-free zones made the murderers' jobs a whole lot easier. Let's not HELP people kill others by preemptively by guilting or outright legislating millions of people into being defenseless. Does anyone know what the SB county policy is for non-law enforcement employees conceal carrying guns? I don't feel defenseless because I don't own firearms. I think it's incredibly sad that's what we've come to. I grew up in a home with guns but they were never taken outside the home unless we were going hunting. They were never taken out so we wouldn't be defenseless. I don't want my dds' schools to be filled with adults carrying weapons. I will yank them right out. I don't at all think it's safer to arm the masses. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I don't feel defenseless because I don't own firearms. I think it's incredibly sad that's what we've come to. I grew up in a home with guns but they were never taken outside the home unless we were going hunting. They were never taken out so we wouldn't be defenseless. I don't want my dds' schools to be filled with adults carrying weapons. I will yank them right out. I don't at all think it's safer to arm the masses. But, if someone with ill-intent starts shooting, you are defenseless. I mean, really, what are your options? Hide and pray? Not a bad idea, but a better option is that there's someone nearby with good aim that shoots BACK. I wish our culture wasn't becoming increasingly violent. I hate it! But, that's the reality at this point in time. Arming the (law-abiding) masses evens the playing field somewhat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 But, if someone with ill-intent starts shooting, you are defenseless. I mean, really, what are your options? Hide and pray? Not a bad idea, but a better option is that there's someone nearby with good aim that shoots BACK. I wish our culture wasn't becoming increasingly violent. I hate it! But, that's the reality at this point in time. Arming the (law-abiding) masses evens the playing field somewhat. I just disagree completely. I think that person shooting back has more potential to hurt innocent bystanders than they do of actually taking out a baddie. I don't think it evens the playing field at all. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Unfortunately, I don't think it's that far fetched these days. At least, according to what I see on my FB feeds. A FB friend the other day posted how their vehicle was broken into and a cross bow, several rifles, a handgun, and lots of ammo were stolen. No one seemed to think it weird there was so much fire power in the vehicle. I see many posts recently about storing up and the gear included and it all seems to be so overboard. I definitely think there is a segment of the population that has this kind of gear on hand and, when provoked, can just go right out and do serious damage. Yes it is far fetched. Your FB friend still doesn't have on hand what these gunmen had and the chances of just happening to stumble across it is unlikely. One sure can't count on it for one stop shopping in the moment when ticked off and looking for weapons. Contrary to what people think, even in the gun crazy states, the scenario that this was a completely spontaneous incident where he got ticked and then complained to his buddies and they all "just" went shopping for guns and pipe bombs and protective gear and came back to kill everyone is extremely far fetched. At most, I think the only thing that *might* be accurate is they spontaneously decided to do it right then and there instead of doing whatever they were previously planning when they were chit chatting while making pipe bombs and stocking up on other gear together. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slojo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) :iagree: I have military training, and I definitely couldn't take out a shooter in a situation like what happened today. With all the scared people running around, the odds of hitting a civilian would be astronomical. I can only imagine what would happen if several untrained morons with CC permits all decided to start shooting. The death toll would almost certainly have been higher. Then when the police did get there, they'd have no idea who was the original shooter, and would probably end up shooting the CC permit people. It would make an already horrific situation even worse. There's no good way to end a mass shooting, especially one like today's with assault weapons and body armor. The only way to prevent people from losing their lives is to prevent the shootings from happening at all. Yes!! I think this fantasy of arming "regular civilians" with guns would make most situations worse. I think people overestimate their "ability to handle a gun in an active shooter situation" more than they overestimate their driving abilities or their ability to know when they've had enough to drink. It's just one of those fantasies that gets aided by the way we talk about, advertise and mythologize certain things in our country. But everyone who thinks this is a good idea thinks they'd know exactly what to do in this situation. They are like Nicholas Cage in that hijacked airplane movie where he's asked "What are you going to do?" And he says, "I going to save the bleeping day!" And, if there are all these pro "conceal and carry" folks walking around, why haven't they already jumped in to "save the day?" Maybe because deep down they know that it would make things worse. A rent-a-cop with a handgun wouldn't have done much against three people with body armor and AK-47s. Yep, because the guard would likely be an underpaid individual who has a handgun and a month of training as "protection" for an entire building because who's going to want to "raise taxes" to pay for all of that? Also, even if you could "arm up" the security guard with AK-47s in hospitals and elementary schools, would you want to? And which elementary schools - all of them? Just ones in certain neighborhoods? How would you decide? Could I opt-out of an "armed guard" school if I didn't want my kid in that environment?"Welcome to your first day of school, Johnny!" How would you make that not scary for the kids? Arming teachers doesn't work because if just one of their students "panics" and gets in the way, the teacher would more likely than not be distracted from their "target" and would now be worried about inadvertently shooting their student. Special units are trained to "temporarily ignore" the wounded or frightened hostages in service of bringing the shooter down. No emotional reactions allowed until the threat has been contained. So many, "how would that actually work?" questions. Meanwhile, we have the actually existent examples of dozens of countries that have figured out more sensible gun laws. You want to put trained individuals in every office, school, mall, movie theater, office building, etc. in the U.S.? How many retired police officers are there in this country? All this so the gun lovers in this country don't have to give up their toys and their paranoid fantasies. I really don't understand the "wouldn't work" naysayers when we haven't even tried. Can't be worse than what's already happening, and could be better. At least with stricter gun laws, we'd know that "the folks with the guns" are probably the bad guys. Sure I do. Look at the statistics. Look at the percentage of law enforcement & military that are members of the NRA. Find any statistic that indicates otherwise. Lots of organizations claim to speak for entire groups, and when you ask the "regular Joes" they are usually not as extreme as the "mouthpieces (and that's for both liberal and conservative organizations)." I'd imagine there's a greater appetite for some kind of change than we're told to believe. The military and police are pro-gun for themselves (as would make sense). They may or may not be pro-gun for the average Joe who may or may not know how to handle a situation such as these that keep occurring. And if there's not, well... then we are perfectly engineered to get the same results that we've always been getting, and let's just stop with the "thoughts and prayers" routine -- it's hollow. This is absolutely true. But on the other thread, we were talking about where to *start*. We have to start somewhere. And no one can even agree on any starting point, or any compromise. Seems like a lot of the wounded and dead have already compromised with their lives. Maybe it's time to move the "starting posts." Sensible things like banning certain types of guns, stricter checks -- some of the extreme "no gun control at all" positions aren't much of a compromise. Then we'd have no guns just like we have no drugs in this country. But we'd be much clearer that the folks who did have the guns were on the wrong side of the law (or have stronger mechanisms and grounds for checking if that were the case). There's little moral ambiguity about whether someone in possession of illegal drugs is in the right or the wrong, and little uncertainty about whether law enforcement should be alerted to their possession of drugs. Edited December 3, 2015 by Slojo 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 But, if someone with ill-intent starts shooting, you are defenseless. I mean, really, what are your options? Hide and pray? Not a bad idea, but a better option is that there's someone nearby with good aim that shoots BACK. I wish our culture wasn't becoming increasingly violent. I hate it! But, that's the reality at this point in time. Arming the (law-abiding) masses evens the playing field somewhat. No. That is not a better option. I'm pro gun rights and I still think that's stupid. Unless you have a clear shot, a damned lucky shot, then the BEST option is to get the hell out ASAP, hide if you can't do that, and if both of those options are out, then and only then, fight back. The second someone pulls a weapon on you, no matter who you are or what weapon you might be able to get, you are at the major disadvantage. It is always better to leave and hide until and unless you have the advantage. Two people having a gun does not put them on equal footing. It takes a lot more than that. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 But we'd be much clearer that the folks who did have the guns were on the wrong side of the law (or have stronger mechanisms and grounds for checking if that were the case). There's little moral ambiguity about whether someone in possession of illegal drugs is in the right or the wrong, and little uncertainty about whether law enforcement should be alerted to their possession of drugs. So when someone carrying an illegal firearm comes to rape and kill my children and myself am I supposed to explain to the guy that I gave my gun up to law enforcement and could he please have a seat while I phone the police? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So it was a husband/wife pair....and apparently no other involvement. They leave behind a baby. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-had-traveled-to-saudi-arabia-married-appeared-to-live-american-dream-co-workers-say-20151202-story.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=649324 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 But we'd be much clearer that the folks who did have the guns were on the wrong side of the law (or have stronger mechanisms and grounds for checking if that were the case). There's little moral ambiguity about whether someone in possession of illegal drugs is in the right or the wrong, and little uncertainty about whether law enforcement should be alerted to their possession of drugs. What?! There is a LOT of moral ambiguity about illegal drugs. Pot, anyone? Illegal prescription use, anyone? There's a LOT of evidence that making drugs illegal has done nothing more than perpetuate addiction and create revenue for private prisons and accomplished very little by way of actually making our society less addicted. It hasn't removed drugs or drug problems from society. Never mind that a lot of addicts get that way bc they are self medicating problems our society either won't or can't help in healthier ways. Vets with PTSD for example. And don't screw that I'm pro legal drugs. I actually am not most of the time. But the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure as far as I can tell. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksr5377 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) That's extraordinarily inflammatory. You do realize that in large portions of the country average police response is more than three hours and it is frequently taught that it is your moral responsibility to have a gun to protect your family? I think this is something a lot of people don't consider. I live in the city. If there's a problem I call the police and they're here within 5 minutes. That's been when I call the non-emergency number. My sister is in the middle of nowhere. She called the Sheriff when someone was trying to break into her home with her there. They were already on an emergency call on the other side of the county and said the fastest they could get there was 45 minutes but they would try to contact a neighboring county. Edited December 3, 2015 by ksr5377 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.