Mass shooting in San Bernadino, California

[McLaren]

Differences, for starters, you need majority of knifes as they are not just made for killing purposes (some exceptions include throwing knifes), not to mention it is far more rarer to mass kill with a knife unless you have A LOT of training.

Swords require a lot of training to even be closed to be used as a successful murder weapon, reason why Guns are better choices is because they are much more easier to use than a Sword and also less risky on the user as an inexperienced Swordsman can hurt himself while wielding his sword more often than a Gun user.

Lets not forget Guns do more damage both in quality and quantity.

The difficulty is higher, but with the question being asked about assault rifles, they caused 323 out of 12,664 murders from 2007-2011. Blunt objects caused 496. Knives caused 1,694 murders, more than any other gun that wasn't classified as a handgun.
https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type-2007-2011

Why should we be banning rifles from being collectable items when they account for far less murders than even just blunt objects?

While it is true that the person is at fault I think guns also play a crucial role in the amount of innocent lives are being killed, the more this is getting ignored, the more people are going to get mercilessly murdered.

I'd hate to bring this up again, look at Australia we haven't had a Mass Killing ever since the Tasmanian Shootings in which that event is what the government forced the gun laws in the first place. We have had less killings from the mentally weak as we have taken their best choice of murder away from them. With this, I think it is hard to ignore guns being innocent in all this especially with how routinize Mass Shootings are in the U.S. It isn't because Australia is better than America mentally (I would even argue it is the opposite).

Last I checked, California (& France) also had strict gun laws. If a criminal wants to break the law by killing someone, there's a high chance they will break the law to buy an illegal firearm as well. The govt. can go as far as to ban guns altogether & people will still get a hold of them, for any reason.

Just totally out of curiosity, not a loaded question in the slightest.
As per the 2nd Ammendment is there an upper limit about the types of arms an individual can own, ie anti aircraft, explosives etc etc.
More so has there been a court ruling on it?

@RC45 or @Blood Eagle can answer this in much better detail than I can, but yes, there is a limit on what you can own. I know there are some weapons that require a lot of time & background checks before you're cleared to purchase them & then there are weapons civilians are pretty much banned from owning; I believe only a gun store owner with a spotless record would have a chance of owning such a weapon as far as average joe goes.

 

[Com Fox]

The difficulty is higher, but with the question being asked about assault rifles, they caused 323 out of 12,664 murders from 2007-2011. Blunt objects caused 496. Knives caused 1,694 murders, more than any other gun that wasn't classified as a handgun.
https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type-2007-2011

Why should we banning rifles from being collectable items when they account for far less murders than even just blunt objects?

It is kinda unfair to compare ALL KNIVES in one column to different types of guns in separate columns and even still unlike Guns, most Knives have a purpose outside of killing and being collectables so once again, it isn't fair to compare them and dropping Handguns from your view is totally biased towards guns as they are still guns that are killing people. Not to mention more eas to use to kill people than the other guns which makes it apart of the problem.

Honestly, if all they wanted guns to be is collectables than I think it would be better to just not sell any of the ammo to all those greatly powerful guns.

Last I checked, California (& France) also had strict gun laws. If a criminal wants to break the law by killing someone, there's a high chance they will break the law to buy an illegal firearm as well. The govt. can go as far as to ban guns altogether & people will still get a hold of them, for any reason.

Well Australia seems totally fine with their strict gun laws.

I think the issue comes from neighboring countries/states that are lighter on gun laws and that where they buy their guns instead of going through the hassle of buying them illegally as there is no place near Australia on foot or car where you can get guns more easier. Not to mention there is a stat that 42% in USA already own guns so when some of them snap, they don't need to get guns, they already have it. They aren't getting it illegally as they are more than likely brought guns in the first place as collectables or for self-defense and when they snap, they already have the weapon for a Mass Killing.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Just totally out of curiosity, not a loaded question in the slightest.
As per the 2nd Ammendment is there an upper limit about the types of arms an individual can own, ie anti aircraft, explosives etc etc.
More so has there been a court ruling on it?

If you haven't committed a felony, then no you really don't have a limit (Lewis v. United States).


However, in the early 90's, there were a pair of Supreme Court rulings that all but banned machine guns in private hands. Farmer v. Higgins (1991) stated that the ATF did not need to register new machine guns for private ownership under the exception of 18 USC 922(o)(A)(1). Finally United States v. Warner (1993) ruled that machine guns are not meant for private ownership.

 

[Shaun]

@McLaren @Sanji Himura thankyou both for the responses. 👍

 

[Sanji Himura]

In a case of stricter gun control, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the guns used in the San Bernardino attack were bought legally.

According to new evidence presented by RT, the weapons that were used in the attack, two assault rifles and two pistols, were bought by a friend or relative of Syed Farook four years ago.

This matters because California introduced a gun regulation in 2011 that basically stated that it is “illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party).”

MRCTV notes that unless Farook's friend or relative is a licensed firearms dealer in California, or the transfer occured in another state, then the rifles were acquired illegally.

The handguns, on the other hand, were bought by Farook legally, so a push to ban handguns is to be expected from Obama and his liberal pals.

RT also notes that all four guns has automatic capabilities of some kind, and the rifles does fire .223 caliber ammo, described by RT as "powerful enough to pierce bulletproof vests."

Since Obama's ATF tried earlier this year to ban certain types of the .223, I wouldn't be surprised to see them try again.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/new-san-bernardino-shooting-gun-detail-could-be-a-game-changer

 

[Spurgy 777]

It's ironic that you think that any noob can do a mass killing just by picking up a weapon and firing and yet when an armed citizenry is proposed as a possible deterrent you have people leaping up and telling us that someone with a weapon coming to his own defense in this type of situation will likely be ineffective or do more harm than good.

Not really, trying to hit a large group of people is a lot easier than trying to hit one person in that group without hitting anyone else.

 

[mister dog]

So i suppose this was the first ISIS inspired attack on US soil? In Belgium there's talk of installing a 'radicalization hotline', where people can report those that they fear became Daesh supporters overnight. Might help to avoid them operating under the radar before they strike, it's difficult enough for the secret service to identify all of them.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So i suppose this was the first ISIS inspired attack on US soil? In Belgium there's talk of installing a 'radicalization hotline', where people can report those that they fear became Daesh supporters overnight. Might help to avoid them operating under the radar before they strike, it's difficult enough for the secret service to identify all of them.

First attack? No. Successful? Yes.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

There's been other ISIS inspired attacks in the US but nothing as large as this.

 

[McLaren]

It is kinda unfair to compare ALL KNIVES in one column to different types of guns in separate columns and even still unlike Guns, most Knives have a purpose outside of killing and being collectables so once again, it isn't fair to compare them and dropping Handguns from your view is totally biased towards guns as they are still guns that are killing people. Not to mention more eas to use to kill people than the other guns which makes it apart of the problem.

No, it's not. The question by Akira asked the purpose of assault rifles since they can't be used to hunt or protect your home. I stated it was because people collect them & you chimed in that even then, they can still be used to kill people.

The statistic showed however, that people die more by blunt objects and knives than by assault rifles or even shotguns.

Honestly, if all they wanted guns to be is collectables than I think it would be better to just not sell any of the ammo to all those greatly powerful guns.

Uh, no. Collectable doesn't mean just sit on a wall forever. People shoot them for recreation.

Well Australia seems totally fine with their strict gun laws.

Well, that's good for Australia. Clearly, it doesn't work the same for other places, so continuing to make a note of it is pretty moot.

I think the issue comes from neighboring countries/states that are lighter on gun laws and that where they buy their guns instead of going through the hassle of buying them illegally as there is no place near Australia on foot or car where you can get guns more easier. Not to mention there is a stat that 42% in USA already own guns so when some of them snap, they don't need to get guns, they already have it. They aren't getting it illegally as they are more than likely brought guns in the first place as collectables or for self-defense and when they snap, they already have the weapon for a Mass Killing.

Again with this argument that a gun owner will eventually snap.

If there were 8,500 murders committed by firearm alone in 2007-2011, it looks like a huge chunk of the millions of gun owners in the US are reasonably sane to own them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don't want to damper your enthusiasm fellas, but the whole conversation about guns and knives really belongs in the Guns thread.

 

[RC45]

Don't want to damper your enthusiasm fellas, but the whole conversation about guns and knives really belongs in the Guns thread.

I would say discussion around the weapons etc. used in this crime belong here.

In a case of stricter gun control, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the guns used in the San Bernardino attack were bought legally.

According to new evidence presented by RT, the weapons that were used in the attack, two assault rifles and two pistols, were bought by a friend or relative of Syed Farook four years ago.

This matters because California introduced a gun regulation in 2011 that basically stated that it is “illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party).”

MRCTV notes that unless Farook's friend or relative is a licensed firearms dealer in California, or the transfer occured in another state, then the rifles were acquired illegally.

The handguns, on the other hand, were bought by Farook legally, so a push to ban handguns is to be expected from Obama and his liberal pals.

RT also notes that all four guns has automatic capabilities of some kind, and the rifles does fire .223 caliber ammo, described by RT as "powerful enough to pierce bulletproof vests."

Since Obama's ATF tried earlier this year to ban certain types of the .223, I wouldn't be surprised to see them try again.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/new-san-bernardino-shooting-gun-detail-could-be-a-game-changer

Wow, I am not surprised that such bad info is being spread around, but it is sad.

A quick primer:
There is no such thing as an assault rifle as an actual class of weapons - it is a figment of the governments imagination, a legal classification that has no basis in actual reality, as the "assault" part of the equation is purely based on COSMETIC accoutrements, NOT functional components. Now think about that for a little bit, yeah the government created legislation to ban/control a certain fictitious class of weapons based on LOOK only

The sources you are quoting are themselves quoting sources that appear some what incorrect on a number of fronts.

Regardless if whether the 2 rifles where purchased out of state legally, they are illegal to possess in California, and have been for a number of years. They require the bullet button to release the maximum 10 round mag.

If the weapons where altered to fire automatically (which for the pistols is a far reach) then all 4 weapons where instantly rendered illegal in all 50 states and the person who had them in their possession would have been subject to much Federal Prison time.

Ammo in .223 caliber is not armour piercing, unless it is specific steel core armour piercing ammo. And even then that a bit of a misleading statement, much of the armour worn by LEO's and combat troops is able to withstand steel core .223, 5.56 and 7.62 bullets.

But the bottom-line is that these 2 jihadis where committing crimes from day 1 - crimes that all the laws in the world will not stop the determined criminal from breaking.

All the misinformation being spewed on the media is very troubling.

Owning a firearm involves many stages.

1, it has to be legally purchased in the jurisdiction that the buyer and seller find themselves for the transaction - and many different locations have different rules & regs regarding the transaction.

2, it has to be legally transported back to the purchases resident location - and the act or transporting the weapon is subject to many rules and regs.

3, it has to be legal to possess in the owners resident location - and again, many different locations have cumulative township, city, county, state and federal rules and regs.

It looks like farook the jihadi broke laws at every stage of the ownership process.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think that everyone here can agree to that, but the question is does the media or the Obama white house? They are the ones who are pushing this gun-control narrative at the end of the day, not the people.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like President Obama will address the nation at 8pm EST tomorrow from the Oval Office, only his third Oval Office address in his two terms.

The White House says the president will provide an update on the investigation. Federal authorities have said the attacks are being investigated as an act of terrorism.

"The President will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. "He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values -- our unwavering commitment to justice, equality and freedom -- to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology."

 

[RC45]

Looks like President Obama will address the nation at 8pm EST tomorrow from the Oval Office, only his third Oval Office address in his two terms.

The White House says the president will provide an update on the investigation. Federal authorities have said the attacks are being investigated as an act of terrorism.

"The President will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. "He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values -- our unwavering commitment to justice, equality and freedom -- to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology."

Sounds like he is going to try convince the nation that we have to capitulate and surrender to win this fight.

Borders must remain open, civilians must be disarmed and enemies must be sympathized with.

In 2008 he did say he would fundamentally change the United States - and he is accomplishing just that. Inch by inch.

 

[Grayfox]

Federal authorities have said the attacks are being investigated as an act of terrorism.

Any mass shooting is an act of terrorism, one does not need to have a link to a terrorist group to be labeled as a terrorist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Any mass shooting is an act of terrorism, one does not need to have a link to a terrorist group to be labeled as a terrorist.

Really? If some mad, disgruntled half-wit decides to go into the home of their ex-wife and shoot everybody then that's terrorism? I think that definition would probably be an unhelpful way to blur the lines.

 

[ECGadget]

Any mass shooting is an act of terrorism, one does not need to have a link to a terrorist group to be labeled as a terrorist.

Really? If some mad, disgruntled half-wit decides to go into the home of their ex-wife and shoot everybody then that's terrorism? I think that definition would probably be an unhelpful way to blur the lines.

I think the line we have with terrorism right now is wrong, but I agree with both of you to an extent. I think terrorism should be defined as 'Any mass shooting or form of violence on a public highway or location in which the suspect/suspects intention is to harm multiple persons' or something like that. Under that, we could define 'political terrorism', 'religious extremism', 'gang related terrorism', 'general terrorism'. That way anything from the events of September 11th to the shooting at Sandy Hook would be classed as terrorism, which is what they are in my opinion. It is not smart in my opinion to say that one person who kills say 20 people is 'mentally unstable' and the other who does the same is a 'terrorist' because one has a political motive and the other does not. Both are clearly mentally unstable if they wish to harm others in such a fashion, and both are clearly terrorists in my eyes because they did the same crime.

 

[Grayfox]

Really? If some mad, disgruntled half-wit decides to go into the home of their ex-wife and shoot everybody then that's terrorism? I think that definition would probably be an unhelpful way to blur the lines.

Well look at it this way, A school shooting that kills 10 is not a act of terrorism, while a suicide bombing that kills 2 is.
So what really defines it?

A middle eastern person that kills for no reason?

 

[Dotini]

Terrorism is whatever frightens the hell out of people, who then run herd the other way, and finally fall prey to facile solutions that cost them their money and freedom.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well look at it this way, A school shooting that kills 10 is not a act of terrorism, while a suicide bombing that kills 2 is.
So what really defines it?

Are you saying that terrorist intent correlates with the number of kills achieved?

I'd say that terrorism is defined as the unauthorised or unofficial use of force in pursuit of political aims. I only say that because that's actually the definition, of course.

 

[GTPorsche]

Really? If some mad, disgruntled half-wit decides to go into the home of their ex-wife and shoot everybody then that's terrorism? I think that definition would probably be an unhelpful way to blur the lines.

I'd consider that to be 1st degree murder, and not terrorism.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/san-bernardino-shooters-dad-he-was-obsessed-with-israel/

An interview with between an Italian newspaper and the Farook's father shed some interesting light on the subject:

In an interview with Italian daily La Stampa, Farook said that he once tried to console his son by promising him that Israel would not exist in another two years because “China, Russia and America will bring the Jews back to Ukraine.” In Sunday’s La Stampa (link in Italian) report, Farook said, “My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed,” Farook explained to US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli.

Nice of the Dad to console his son by telling him that Israel won't exist in 2 years. I'm sure that was really helpful.
Father of the Year candidate there

 

[Grayfox]

Are you saying that terrorist intent correlates with the number of kills achieved?

I'd say that terrorism is defined as the unauthorised or unofficial use of force in pursuit of political aims. I only say that because that's actually the definition, of course.

No, but what your intention was/is
But it seems that these mass shooters aren't labeled as terrorists that at all.
This is the first one that I have heard that has been labeled as a terrorist.

 

[Danoff]

Differences, for starters, you need majority of knifes as they are not just made for killing purposes (some exceptions include throwing knifes), not to mention it is far more rarer to mass kill with a knife unless you have A LOT of training.

Swords require a lot of training to even be closed to be used as a successful murder weapon, reason why Guns are better choices is because they are much more easier to use than a Sword and also less risky on the user as an inexperienced Swordsman can hurt himself while wielding his sword more often than a Gun user.

Lets not forget Guns do more damage both in quality and quantity.

Guns are inanimate objects, they don't "do" anything. They can protect, or offend, or gather dust.

While it is true that the person is at fault I think guns also play a crucial role in the amount of innocent lives are being killed, the more this is getting ignored, the more people are going to get mercilessly murdered.

Often times illegal guns, and illegal body armor, and illegal explosives... why would I bring that up?

I'd hate to bring this up again, look at Australia we haven't had a Mass Killing ever since the Tasmanian Shootings in which that event is what the government forced the gun laws in the first place. We have had less killings from the mentally weak as we have taken their best choice of murder away from them. With this, I think it is hard to ignore guns being innocent in all this especially with how routinize Mass Shootings are in the U.S. It isn't because Australia is better than America mentally (I would even argue it is the opposite).

That's awesome for you guys, I'm glad nobody ever dies in Australia. Guess what, in the US it's illegal for lawmakers to try to ban guns. There's no point in discussing it.

 

[Denur]

in the US it's illegal for lawmakers to try to ban guns.

Unless the Constitution is amended. But that isn't going to happen any time soon, I guess.

source

 

[Sanji Himura]

Unless the Constitution is amended. But that isn't going to happen any time soon, I guess.

source

Unless you know the methodology behind the numbers (i.e. percentage of respondents are democrat, republican or independent), then those numbers are basically worthless. About 70% of the time, outside of candidates polls (which will tell you if those numbers are respondents are either registered voters or likely voters), a lot of those polls tend to skew to the liberal ideology.

Here is a case in point from the link, and ironically the only poll on the link that actually spewed out any source of the numbers behind the poll in question:

Question: Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?

Feb. 8-10, 2008: 73% say that the second amendment guarantees all Americans the right to own guns whereas only 20% say it only guarantees members of State Militias with 7% having no opinion on the subject.

Breaking it down between actual gun owners, 91% say it guarantees all americans whereas 6% say State militias with 3% having no opinion.

For Non-gun owners, the numbers say 63% say all americans, 28% say state militias and 9% say no opinion.

How did they come up with the numbers though? According to the source link, they polled 630 non-gun owners (getting a 4 point margin of error) and only a measly 373 gun owners (6 point margin of error).

You don't think that survey companies try to push a message, do you?

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...before-shooting-source-says.html?intcmp=hpbt1

A $28,500 deposit was made to Syed Farook’s bank account from WebBank.com on or about Nov.18, some two weeks before he and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the San Bernardino massacre, a source close to the investigation told Fox News Monday.

Investigators are exploring whether the transaction was a loan taken out by Farook, who with his wife killed 14 and wounded 21 when they opened fire at a holiday lunch. He earned $53,000 a year with the county as an environmental health inspector.

On or about Nov.20, Fox News is told Farook converted $10,000 to cash, and withdrew the money at a Union Bank branch in San Bernardino. Afterwards, in the days before the shooting, there were at least three transfers of $5,000 that appear to be to Farook’s mother.
Fox News is also told that investigators are exploring whether the $10,000 cash withdrawal was used to reimburse Enrique Marquez, the man who bought the two semiautomatic rifles used in the San Bernardino shootings. Marquez is now reportedly answering investigators’ questions.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Remember the pipe bombs that never exploded? Well, their targets were first responders, a technique seen in the middle east.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/07/terror-couple-bombs-were-set-to-kill-first-repsonders/

 

[Dotini]

FOX is reporting FBI sources as saying the female suspect in the case had been radicalized for quite some time - in a foreign country - and may well have been an agent.