Mass shooting in San Bernadino, California

[CodeRedR51]

By the way do you guys not do atheists? Or are they the sane people that dont go on the rampage?

A large majority of the time, they don't. In fact I can't remember the last time there was a nationally covered act of violence where the headline said "Atheist kills XX number of people". Because you know the media would have a heyday with it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Looking at the picture of them they are dark skinned so im assuming terrorist attack if muslim...If they were Sikh's then i would assume crazy assed peeps like the Christians. By the way do you guys not do atheists? Or are they the sane people that dont go on the rampage?

Timothy McVeigh was neither dark skinned, or Muslim, yet he still committed one of the most deadly "terror" attacks on US soil, and it was not done in the name of Allah..... Good luck picking out an average looking white dude as a terrorist.

 

[PzR Slim]

I very much do atheists. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, pick whatever you want. If you go around mass murdering innocent people you're first and foremost a sick lunatic. Religion or lack of it doesn't make these people do what they do. It's a vehicle they use to legitimise their sick, depraved, inhuman actions. Religion has got nothing to do with it. It's the human condition.

 

[ECGadget]

I very much do atheists. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, pick whatever you want. If you go around mass murdering innocent people you're first and foremost a sick lunatic. Religion or lack of it doesn't make these people do what they do. It's a vehicle they use to legitimise their sick, depraved, inhuman actions. Religion has got nothing to do with it. It's the human condition.

Hear hear. I just feel for all those on the receiving end of these lunatics, as well as the families and friends.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't get it. How can some of you be so obsessed with a political soap box that you can't see a tragedy for what it is even when it's still happening in front of you?

Phew!! Thank goodness you weren't trying to make a political statement fresh after a mother stabbed eight children to death then.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/eight-children-found-dead-home-cairns-australia-n271426

Turns out you do end up with mass-killings involving knives. Who would've guessed?

That'd be embarrassing.

 

[GTPorsche]

I wonder what percentage of the other 354 mass shooting perps in the US this year were Christians? Sick lunatics like this are just sick lunatics no matter their religion

Completely false and unfounded statement. There's been 9 mass shootings this year in the US. The media is taking all shooting incidents and making them mass shootings.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Completely false and unfounded statement. There's been 9 mass shootings this year in the US. The media is taking all shooting incidents and making them mass shootings.

The stat quoted indicates that definition of a mass shooting as 4+ including shooter. What's the definition of mass shooting for your 9 figure?

Not arguing either way, just curious.

 

[GTPorsche]

I should clarify just a bit, yesterday's shooting was the 10th mass shooting incident this year in the USA that got media attention.

Anyway, snopes being the fact checkers that they are, have more info on it. http://www.snopes.com/351-mass-shootings/

Then again, the 9 I counted + 1 yesterday are the ones the media reported on. It doesn't factor in other non-reported incidents in places like Detroit or Chicago, and as listed in the snopes article, there have been 310 mass shootings this year.

There's no solid definition on it, but 2013 congressional research put the statistic at needing 3+ deaths to be considered for a mass shooting.

 

[W3H5]

I feel it boils down to whatever makes someone like this think it is okay to kill innocent civilians, whether that is their religion, connections or whatever else. All gun control will do is stop law abiding citizens, which generally are not the people that commit these acts, from getting a firearm. If it was made illegal to own a firearm in this country, do you honestly think that something like this still wouldn't happen? There are a ton of ways to obtain a firearm illegally in America and that is generally the route these terrorists use so we need to talk about mental health and things of that nature, something that will actually prevent something like this from happening, rather than the tool a terrorist used. Also, it looks like they had some bombs with them as well, maybe we need to have some sort of law that makes making bombs illegal too.

What you say makes perfect sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns, but I don't agree with the way gun regulations are implemented in the US; how you can buy a gun from a show with no background check, pick one up from Craigslist in the same fashion, etc.

It does take a crazy to kill in this manor, guns or no guns, but compare the US gun regulations to those of other countries where guns are popular but highly regulated and I think it's obvious that the figures on firearm homicides speak for themselves.

There are ways to obtain firearms illegally in the UK, too, but it's been decades since somebody shot up a school in Britain. Where I live in Thailand guns are very popular and many people own them, of 10m guns, 600'000 are unregistered and the homocide rate is one of the highest in the world. Is it a coincidence that both the US and Thailand have tons of guns everywhere and also both have seriously high murder rates by guns?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I should clarify just a bit, yesterday's shooting was the 10th mass shooting incident this year in the USA that got media attention.

Anyway, snopes being the fact checkers that they are, have more info on it. http://www.snopes.com/351-mass-shootings/

Then again, the 9 I counted + 1 yesterday are the ones the media reported on. It doesn't factor in other non-reported incidents in places like Detroit or Chicago, and as listed in the snopes article, there have been 310 mass shootings this year.

There's no solid definition on it, but 2013 congressional research put the statistic at needing 3+ deaths to be considered for a mass shooting.

I'll believe Snopes, and I generally don't, before I believe that statistic at face value.

The fact that the definition of a mass shooting is, for the large part, fluid enough that even though 352 shootings in 2015 as of today(using the congressional definition), only 10 shootings here in the US got any sort of national coverage does speak of the media cherry picking certain shootings to drive an agenda. To compare the coverage of the last two shootings that got national coverage, the Planned Parenthood shooting and this one, one was covered to basically protect Planned Parenthood (a group that gets federal dollars and dollars for security) and push an anti-Christian agenda whereas this shooting was done in the name of terror plain and simple, but the narrative from our president is to push Gun control (something that you all are willing to discuss a page and a half back) rather than address the terror issue is being echoed in the mainstream media.

I would like to make very clear that the Planned Parenthood shooter, according to voting records is registered as a woman. Now does that seem to you that fact is something that the media at large wants out there?

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

how you can buy a gun from a show with no background check,

This is inaccurate. A gun show is pretty much just a giant gun shop that is employed by multiple gun dealers.

If you have a few minutes, watch this video.

 

[Sanji Himura]

This is inaccurate. A gun show is pretty much just a giant gun shop that is employed by multiple gun dealers.

I would advise you to watch that video more carefully. The only so called "gun show loophole" that the liberals really want closed is person to person transfers, something that the dealer isn't legally required to supervise nor fill out any paperwork on that transfer. States may vary, but as things stand right now at the federal level, an FFL isn't required for a person to person transfer. In fact, you could, if such a case would apply, sell a gun to a dope dealer that lives in state and that would normally be the end of it unless said dope dealer commits a crime with that gun. Unless you are legally protected by having a Bill of Sale with the dope dealer's information on it (as well as information about the gun), as the last person that the feds have any paperwork on (as the FFL form has you as the owner), you're going to jail.

That said, I agree that calling a person to person transfer the "gun show" loophole is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[McLaren]

Completely false and unfounded statement. There's been 9 mass shootings this year in the US. The media is taking all shooting incidents and making them mass shootings.

So there is someone who hasn't decided to completely buy into such baloney.

An academic told us that one problem with Mass Shooting Tracker is it lumps together incidents that are different -- for example, those shot in bar fights are counted along with school shootings.

"This is not consistent with the motivations behind events like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, or Sandy Hook, and therefore are not comparable in the way we think of mass shootings," said Jaclyn Schildkraut, at State University of New York System. "By including such events to try and quantify a phenomenon (though the loss of one life is one too many), these sources essentially are inflating the statistics.

 

[RC45]

I would advise you to watch that video more carefully. The only so called "gun show loophole" that the liberals really want closed is person to person transfers, something that the dealer isn't legally required to supervise nor fill out any paperwork on that transfer. States may vary, but as things stand right now at the federal level, an FFL isn't required for a person to person transfer. In fact, you could, if such a case would apply, sell a gun to a dope dealer that lives in state and that would normally be the end of it unless said dope dealer commits a crime with that gun. Unless you are legally protected by having a Bill of Sale with the dope dealer's information on it (as well as information about the gun), as the last person that the feds have any paperwork on (as the FFL form has you as the owner), you're going to jail.

This statement is patently false.

There is no Federal gun register, apart from NFA items for which tax has been paid to facilitate the legal transfer there of - the 4473 is not a weapon registration form, its is an over the counter transaction record for the FFL dealer (and convenient jump off for the NICS background check which is a call in process) form and as such the lack of paper work for a person to person (face to face) transfer in a jurisdiction that legally permits such transaction in no way make you liable.

If the gun was never registered, how is it known to be in your possession after the sale?

As a resident of Texas you ought to know this.

 

[Sanji Himura]

This statement is patently false.

There is no Federal gun register, apart from NFA items for which tax has been paid to facilitate the legal transfer there of - the 4473 is not a weapon registration form, its is an over the counter transaction record for the FFL dealer (and convenient jump off for the NICS background check which is a call in process) form and as such the lack of paper work for a person to person (face to face) transfer in a jurisdiction that legally permits such transaction in no way make you liable.

If the gun was never registered, how is it known to be in your possession after the sale?

As a resident of Texas you ought to know this.

I didn't say that there was, nor did I imply one.

The closest thing to a federal gun registry is those FFL forms, which track gun sales from the dealer to a gun buyer. In other words, form 4473, as required by the Brady Bill, only covers one portion of the paper trail to the gun's ownership history (think of it as CarFax for guns.) As stated earlier, there is no required background check on a person to person sale or transfer of firearms, in other words, this is the so called "Gun Show" loophole that gun control advocates are so in a tizzy over. Your state may vary (again I stress this), but the purpose of a 4473 is indeed to provide a cookie trail from a gun to a legal sale. It is the responsibility of the person on that 4473 if that gun is no longer on their person to provide a Bill of Sale record if the gun in question was involved in a crime to prove that you actually sold the gun to another person.

And for the record, I don't own a gun for my own mental sanity.

 

[RC45]

I didn't say that there was, nor did I imply one.

The closest thing to a federal gun registry is those FFL forms, which track gun sales from the dealer to a gun buyer. In other words, form 4473, as required by the Brady Bill, only covers one portion of the paper trail to the gun's ownership history (think of it as CarFax for guns.) As stated earlier, there is no required background check on a person to person sale or transfer of firearms, in other words, this is the so called "Gun Show" loophole that gun control advocates are so in a tizzy over. Your state may vary (again I stress this), but the purpose of a 4473 is indeed to provide a cookie trail from a gun to a legal sale. It is the responsibility of the person on that 4473 if that gun is no longer on their person to provide a Bill of Sale record if the gun in question was involved in a crime to prove that you actually sold the gun to another person.

And for the record, I don't own a gun for my own mental sanity.

I bolded another patently false statement.

The 4473 is the paperwork the FFL keeps, it is not filed in a vault with the Feds. It is a record of the over the counter sale and transfer for the FFL to keep.

After a gun shop closes and the FFL expires, the 4473's can rot in a shed as far as the GCA is concerned.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]


What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to

engage in a firearms transaction?

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same

State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may

sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a

private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State.

It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or

transfer when the buyer and seller are "same-State" residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may

not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited

persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there


are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

I bolded, italicized and underlined the key.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The 4473 is the paperwork the FFL keeps, it is not filed in a vault with the Feds. It is a record of the over the counter sale and transfer for the FFL to keep.

After a gun shop closes and the FFL expires, the 4473's can rot in a shed as far as the GCA is concerned.

Perhaps I'm not clear, I didn't say the feds keep the paperwork. All I said was that if a gun was used in a crime, the feds would begin the weapon trace with the 4473 form. The 4473 is the first in a weapon's paper trail. Again, I stress that state law may vary, but the Bill of Sale from person to person would be a good idea if the feds come knocking, and in some cases may be required on a person to person transfer.

On that note, let's bring Fast and Furious into the discussion. The whole program was designed to get the FFL's to break the law by not filling out the 4473 forms on weapon sales, in other words, the feds wanted guns to walk. Of the over 2,000 guns that walked, only 710 were recovered by feds. That is a massive 1,390 guns that simply vanished from FFL shelves simply because of Eric Holder's program.

 

[RC45]

Perhaps I'm not clear, I didn't say the feds keep the paperwork. All I said was that if a gun was used in a crime, the feds would begin the weapon trace with the 4473 form. The 4473 is the first in a weapon's paper trail. Again, I stress that state law may vary, but the Bill of Sale from person to person would be a good idea if the feds come knocking, and in some cases may be required on a person to person transfer.

Would be a good idea is not law. Again below is the actual US Code. The 4473 is the FFL record of sale and transfer for the over the counter transaction, and if the original purchaser no longer has the weapon the trace stops there.

And if the Feds don't keep a copy of the 4473, how would they know to go search at Joe Blow's Gun Shop? There is no Federal register. Some states do however require gun registration, but Texas is not one of them.

The trace process actually starts with the importer/manufacturer that records the dealer they sold the gun to. The ATF will then go to the dealer and ask to see the gun or the 4473 of the sale.

If the original purchaser no longer has the gun because of a face to face transfer/sale then the Feds go look some place else to locate the person that used the gun in a crime.

See, the actual US Code has no record keeping requirement for face to face transactions.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]


What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to

engage in a firearms transaction?

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same

State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may

sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a

private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State.

It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or

transfer when the buyer and seller are "same-State" residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may

not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited

persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there


are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

 

[Sanji Himura]

And if the Feds don't keep a copy of the 4473, how would they know to go search at Joe Blow's Gun Shop? There is no Federal register. Some states do however require gun registration, but Texas is not one of them.

It's legal liability. I remember the McDonalds law that was passed in the 90's to protect fast food joints from obesity lawsuits. Same thing here.

 

[RC45]

It's legal liability. I remember the McDonalds law that was passed in the 90's to protect fast food joints from obesity lawsuits. Same thing here.

No, I will again point you to the actual US Code, if you legally sell/give away a firearm in a face to face personal non-FFL transaction you have no legal requirement to keep any records - period. So the liability is none existent.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]


What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to

engage in a firearms transaction?

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same

State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may

sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a

private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State.

It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or

transfer when the buyer and seller are "same-State" residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may

not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited

persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there


are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

 

[PzR Slim]

Completely false and unfounded statement. There's been 9 mass shootings this year in the US. The media is taking all shooting incidents and making them mass shootings.

Just reporting what the BBC are reporting and they got their info from here http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Which seems to include any incident where 4 or more people were killed and injured. For me that is a mass shooting. But I agree it depends what you consider to be a mass shooting.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So there is someone who hasn't decided to completely buy into such baloney.

I was under the impression that a "mass shooting" was an event in which four or more people are shot and either injured or killed. What kind of bar fight are people getting into where one person needs to get shot, much less four?

There's been 9 mass shootings this year in the US. The media is taking all shooting incidents and making them mass shootings.

I love this comment, simply because it suggests that it's okay for people to get shot unless lots of people get shot at once. You don't see a problem with that? I mean, one of the newspapers ran the headline "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS" for a reason ...

 

[RC45]

Just reporting what the BBC are reporting and they got their info from here http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Which seems to include any incident where 4 or more people were killed and injured. For me that is a mass shooting. But I agree it depends what you consider to be a mass shooting.

Many of those reports are of gang related shootings. Drug dealers having it out, robberies and other criminal on criminal gun play.

I was under the impression that a "mass shooting" was an event in which four or more people are shot and either injured or killed. What kind of bar fight are people getting into where one person needs to get shot, much less four?

The majority of those shootings are black on black and hispanic on hispanic gang related crime - not bar arguments or even domestic violence events.

I love this comment, simply because it suggests that it's okay for people to get shot unless lots of people get shot at once. You don't see a problem with that? I mean, one of the newspapers ran the headline "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS" for a reason ...

No, the implication is that the false narrative agenda of anti-gun advocates is to report all criminal activity as if it is "mass terror" shootings versus criminal gangs against criminal gangs in the high crime ghettos.

Surely you can draw a distinction between a drug dealer and other gang members having a shoot out in a ghetto on one hand and a mentally ill person shooting up a school or muslim terrorist attacks on the other?

 

[Danoff]

Phew!! Thank goodness you weren't trying to make a political statement fresh after a mother stabbed eight children to death then.

That'd be embarrassing.

I don't think you understood my point... perhaps in either post.

If someone said "you can't execute mass killings with guns" and then was posted this incident as a rebuttal... do you think I'd have had the same response? Do you think that my earlier post could have been directed at that person? Do you even think that would be considered political? Does that constitute someone on a soap box?

No. None of that is true. I can take this deconstruction further, but there's no need. You've taken a superficial similarity and used it to make an ad hominem attack in the hopes of undermining my sentiment. So here's my response, and this is a wider response for everyone who might be bothering to read:

In life, do not get wrapped up in technical analysis. Can you make that superficial argument? Sure. Might it look good to someone who hasn't thought about it? Sure. But it doesn't make actual sense. I have a friend who is suing someone because he can, he never stopped to ask whether he should. In politics, arguments are made constantly by politicians because they can - there is no real consideration for whether they make actual sense. The idea is to get quick, cheap applause in the hopes that the audience never stops to consider.

In your case, I believe you just wanted to get a jab in any way you could and didn't think much about what you were trying to say. I doubt you even realized that you were glossing over the point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I love this comment, simply because it suggests that it's okay for people to get shot unless lots of people get shot at once. You don't see a problem with that? I mean, one of the newspapers ran the headline "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS" for a reason ...

Yes, to score cheap political points around a tragic situation. You don't think that 4 Republican presidential candidates being on the cover was a coincidence do you?

 

[Danoff]

I love this comment, simply because it suggests that it's okay for people to get shot unless lots of people get shot at once. You don't see a problem with that? I mean, one of the newspapers ran the headline "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS" for a reason ...

My favorite thing about it is that it suggests that it's ok for people to get killed as long as they don't get shot.

 

[Pupik]

Yes, to score cheap political points around a tragic situation. You don't think that 4 Republican presidential candidates being on the cover was a coincidence do you?

Then why don't they just say: "I plan on no actual changes...next question, please"? Instead, it's a meaningless Foursquare Check-In statement, but replace "location" with "press".

Oh right, they're politicians.

 

[McLaren]

I was under the impression that a "mass shooting" was an event in which four or more people are shot and either injured or killed. What kind of bar fight are people getting into where one person needs to get shot, much less four?


I love this comment, simply because it suggests that it's okay for people to get shot unless lots of people get shot at once. You don't see a problem with that? I mean, one of the newspapers ran the headline "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS" for a reason ...

If you want to look at it by the most technical detail & miss the point, sure.

As he correctly pointed out, it's a statistic being reported every time there's an event like this one that gives the false impression that every one of those incidents reported is like California's; somebody came out of nowhere and just started spraying bullets. If you read the quote, it clearly shows that most events noted shouldn't be grouped with major events like Sandy Hook & so forth due to severity of them.

He also not in any way advocating it's ok to kill anyone. My sourced quote also says that. Silly for even thinking that was what that comment was about.

 

[ECGadget]

Sky News is reporting that US Intelligence services have discovered links to the Daesh in the form of a facebook page for the woman, who is believed to be from Pakistan, not Qatar as was first being reported.

What kind of sick, twisted individuals must you be though to
1) side with IS
2) Kill anyone, especially people whom you have worked with
3) Do that whilst lying to your relative and leaving a six month old baby with them.


Edit: That being said, it is emerging that they saw IS as an inspiration for the attack, not a directive from them. Either way, 14 people are no longer on this Earth who were doing nothing wrong, and that is horrible.

 

[RC45]

Sky News is reporting that US Intelligence services have discovered links to the Daesh in the form of a facebook page for the woman, who is believed to be from Pakistan, not Qatar as was first being reported.

What kind of sick, twisted individuals must you be though to
1) side with IS
2) Kill anyone, especially people whom you have worked with
3) Do that whilst lying to your relative and leaving a six month old baby with them.


Edit: That being said, it is emerging that they saw IS as an inspiration for the attack, not a directive from them. Either way, 14 people are no longer on this Earth who were doing nothing wrong, and that is horrible.

Islamic fundamentalist - this is how they are required to operate and think.

They are following teachings of mohamed that instructs his followers to lie and deceive the infidels in order to gain their trust, then strike.