Shooting in California

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

Reuters

Wow, they really have no idea where they've gone.

Which would beg the question......why was Boston locked down after the Marathon bombing? Why was martial law effectively declared? Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed. In San Bernardino they are searching for 2 or 3 or maybe more armed to the teeth guys who have already killed a dozen and there's only an announcement to be "vigilant"

asherbassad

Letree wrote: »

Get the waterboard machine set up.

For what exactly?

And there's no such thing as a "waterboard machine" FFS.......or do you mean a JUG?

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is why the whole "Let's take back the spare ex-military armored vehicles from the police" thing that's been going on recently is stupid. People keep asking "Why does this town or that town need an armored vehicle? It's not New York or LA". The problem is that these things don't just happen in New York or LA, as this incident shows.

Oh brother! More fantasyland hollywood bullshit

c_man

asherbassad wrote: »

To be honest, why would Islamic fundamentalists wear body armour?
Doesn't really make sense. They do want to kill but they generally hope to be martyred during the killing. A kevlar vest is anathema to that.

Not really. For example, the Charlie Hebdo killers were wearing body armour

asherbassad

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Have ISIS ever been part of a terrorist attack in the US?

Most of the time it's white gun owner or their child doing the shooting, more than likely its the same thing.

Which just goes to show that the whole terror alert / DHS / TSA / no-fly-lists / "see something, same something" bullsh1t is just a massive farce.

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

Hispanic male, shaved head, orange shirt, camo pants. Police are trying to apprehend on East Briar Dr.

Guess what. Not ISIS.

You can just imagine Donald Trump salivating along with the security apparatus people. He gets to use this as yet another stick to beat Mexicans with and the cops get to bang on about how they obviously need tanks and drones and hellfire missiles. The fucking clowns will probably say they need F-16's now.

Nodin

asherbassad wrote: »

Which just goes to show that the whole terror alert / DHS / TSA / no-fly-lists / "see something, same something" bullsh1t is just a massive farce.

Well you can't really plan for a random lunatic, in fairness, while you can monitor the slightly more rational who have a known agenda.

Dohnjoe

asherbassad wrote: »

Which would beg the question......why was Boston locked down after the Marathon bombing? Why was martial law effectively declared? Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed. In San Bernardino they are searching for 2 or 3 or maybe more armed to the teeth guys who have already killed a dozen and there's only an announcement to be "vigilant"

Different situations

Boston bombing had no suspects until 3 days later, and when it became apparent they were active again, then it became a manhunt - a city on lockdown is easier to track/pursue suspects

San Bernardino was more fluid, the suspects fled directly after, so the chase was on - every minute passing the window was closing

Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed.

They had just shot an officer, this triggered the manhunt

BattleCorp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Not even close.

It's because they're extremists who think that what they want trumps the lives of innocent children being shot up on school.

Polls show that approximately 42% - 50% of US households have guns. In reality these figures are probably incorrect. The true number is probably higher as the poll depended on citizens answering honestly. Some citizens might be suspicious and not admit to owning a gun.

That's a lot of people who own guns. Of the other roughly 50% of households that don't have guns, a lot of them would still believe in the right to have one if the so desired.

So it's not a tiny minority of people that believe in the right to own guns. It's not a tiny number of people who support the NRA and their aims. There are over 5,000,000 active members in the NRA and a lot of other people who are not members would also back them.

I wouldn't consider the NRA an extremist group. They are pretty much a Union who look after the interests of their members. They don't only fight for gun owner's rights, they are also the largest firearms safety trainers/instructors in the States.

Hard as it might be for you to believe, but the NRA don't want to see schools being shot up or innocent children getting killed. Apart from them being human and not wanting to see innocent people being killed, mass shootings cause them no end of hassle and makes their job much harder.

TeaBagMania

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

Superhorse

Watching that story unfold last night one thing became crystal clear to me. The San Bernandino police department look like they are more heavily armed than the Irish army and if an ISIS or Islamic terrorist type situation occurred here are the Gardaí armed with something better than 20 year old uzi's to neutralise the threat?

Amazingfun

asherbassad wrote: »

You can just imagine Donald Trump salivating along with the security apparatus people. He gets to use this as yet another stick to beat Mexicans with and the cops get to bang on about how they obviously need tanks and drones and hellfire missiles. The fucking clowns will probably say they need F-16's now.

What about the illegal Mexicans that beat, rape and kill innocent Americans? THAT is what Trump is talking about-he wants the law of the country upheld, and why the hell should they not be upheld anyways?

Or do illegal Mexicans committing crimes against Americans make you "salivate".

Jesus, the amount of ignorant comments on here....

Superhorse

BattleCorp wrote: »

Polls show that approximately 42% - 50% of US households have guns. In reality these figures are probably incorrect. The true number is probably higher as the poll depended on citizens answering honestly. Some citizens might be suspicious and not admit to owning a gun.

That's a lot of people who own guns. Of the other roughly 50% of households that don't have guns, a lot of them would still believe in the right to have one if the so desired.

So it's not a tiny minority of people that believe in the right to own guns. It's not a tiny number of people who support the NRA and their aims. There are over 5,000,000 active members in the NRA and a lot of other people who are not members would also back them.

I wouldn't consider the NRA an extremist group. They are pretty much a Union who look after the interests of their members. They don't only fight for gun owner's rights, they are also the largest firearms safety trainers/instructors in the States.

Hard as it might be for you to believe, but the NRA don't want to see schools being shot up or innocent children getting killed. Apart from them being human and not wanting to see innocent people being killed, mass shootings cause them no end of hassle and makes their job much harder.

There are 310 million registered guns in America, registered. Frightening numbers. This stuff is only going to get more common. Obama hasn't a hope in hell of solving it.

JustShon

Amazingfun wrote: »

What about the illegal Mexicans that beat, rape and kill innocent Americans?

What about American citizens who beat, rape and kill other innocent Americans?

JPNelsforearm

Islamists in Islamic terrorism shocker.....

The Randy Riverbeast

TeaBagMania wrote: »

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

Might as well make nothing illegal then, criminals dont follow the law. They will still speed or get nuclear weapons. Fast cars and nuclear weapons for all!

I'm sure some common sense would kick in eventually to say its impossible to prevent any crimes being committed.

asherbassad

The_Mac wrote: »

They obviously know some things but investigations take some time. You can't throw tidbits to the media, they'll eat it up and present it as the true case. I mean for **** sake CNN are speculating over what could have happened rather than wait for the truth, if they released any info atm that would be reported as what definitely happened.

When it's a genuine attack they are usually quite clueless. When it's a false flag hoax they have, and immediately release, the details of who is "responsible"

BattleCorp

Superhorse wrote: »

There are 310 million registered guns in America, registered. Frightening numbers. This stuff is only going to get more common. Obama hasn't a hope in hell of solving it.

Yup, like you said, that's registered guns. I'd bet there's an incredibly large number of unregistered guns over there too.

If you banned every single gun in America, it would be impossible to take them back out of circulation.

The combined armies of the US, Russia, China, UK and anybody else that you think of couldn't do this.

Sheeps

TeaBagMania wrote: »

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

lmfao is the only response I have to your post.

Mesrine65

Superhorse wrote: »

Watching that story unfold last night one thing became crystal clear to me. The San Bernandino police department look like they are more heavily armed than the Irish army and if an ISIS or Islamic terrorist type situation occurred here are the Gardaí armed with something better than 20 year old uzi's to neutralise the threat?

Militarization of police forces is nothing new, one only has to look at the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia etc.

Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in the United States, with both the right-of-center/libertarian CATO Institute & the left-of-center American Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice.

The Fraternal Order of Police has spoken out in favour of equipping law enforcement officers with military equipment, on the grounds that 'it increases the officers' safety & enables them to protect civilians.'(sic)

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States...hence the militarization of police.

The Act does not apply to the Army & Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.

BattleCorp

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Militarization of police forces is nothing new, one only has to look at the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia etc.

Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in the United States, with both the right-of-center/libertarian CATO Institute & the left-of-center American Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice.

As a law abiding person, it's of little consequence to me what military gear the cops have. As a law abiding person, I can't ever foresee a time when they will be using it on me.

Jelle1880

BattleCorp wrote: »

Polls show that approximately 42% - 50% of US households have guns. In reality these figures are probably incorrect. The true number is probably higher as the poll depended on citizens answering honestly. Some citizens might be suspicious and not admit to owning a gun.

That's a lot of people who own guns. Of the other roughly 50% of households that don't have guns, a lot of them would still believe in the right to have one if the so desired.

So it's not a tiny minority of people that believe in the right to own guns. It's not a tiny number of people who support the NRA and their aims. There are over 5,000,000 active members in the NRA and a lot of other people who are not members would also back them.

I wouldn't consider the NRA an extremist group. They are pretty much a Union who look after the interests of their members. They don't only fight for gun owner's rights, they are also the largest firearms safety trainers/instructors in the States.

Hard as it might be for you to believe, but the NRA don't want to see schools being shot up or innocent children getting killed. Apart from them being human and not wanting to see innocent people being killed, mass shootings cause them no end of hassle and makes their job much harder.

The NRA don't want anything else apart from promoting gun ownership for as many people. The more people own guns, the more people might join up with the NRA.

Their stance on it is completely incompatible with common sense. They are for arming teachers for **** sake.

That they provide training is commendable but it's the least you can expect from an organisation that advocates for more guns.

And I never said they want things like Sandy Hook etc. to happen, but they place their guns above the lives of children, they are crystal clear about that.

John Oliver had an interview with Phillip Van Cleave, the chairman of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who basically said that he is against checks for people who want to buy a gun under ANY circumstances. Even a simple mental background check to make sure that somebody who buys an assault rifle doesn't have... oh, I don't know, a history of depression, abuse, criminal records,...

He is also in favour of allowing people who carry a gun (so anyone, not just police) to drink while carrying said gun. Simply because according to him it's unfair that police get to do it.

I know it's not the NRA, but I would be surprised if their ideologies would differ much.

BattleCorp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The NRA don't want anything else apart from promoting gun ownership for as many people. The more people own guns, the more people might join up with the NRA.

I don't see the problem with this, they are doing their job, looking out for gun owners. The FAI encourages new people to take up football, the GAA does something similar, the NRA does this for firearms. That's what organisations do.

Their stance on it is completely incompatible with common sense. They are for arming teachers for **** sake.

They live in a very different country to here in Ireland. I wouldn't dream of arming a teacher here in Ireland, but over there, I think if I was a teacher I wouldn't mind carrying a gun. They are allowed guns for self defence, we aren't. They are arguing that teachers should be allowed to defend themselves, like their Constitution allows.

And I never said they want things like Sandy Hook etc. to happen, but they place their guns above the lives of children, they are crystal clear about that.

Supposing you are the President of America, what would you do if you were in power at the time of Sandy Hook?

John Oliver had an interview with Phillip Van Cleave, the chairman of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who basically said that he is against checks for people who want to buy a gun under ANY circumstances. Even a simple mental background check to make sure that somebody who buys an assault rifle doesn't have... oh, I don't know, a history of depression, abuse, criminal records,...

That person has an extreme view, which I wouldn't share. There are some people who shouldn't have access to firearms. It is worth pointing out but banning them from owning firearms wouldn't stop them from getting firearms if they so desired.

steddyeddy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't remember the thread about the Paris attacks turning into a debate about gun control. People have been murdered yet posters immediately jump in with comments to voice their pro/anti gun agenda just because it happened in America.

The problem with debates like these is the pro-gun brigade look at each instance in isolation. This isn't one mass shooting, it's several hundred. There will undoubtedly be more next year.

Amazingfun

Authorities Search Redlands Home Tied To Suspect Syed Farook


Scared of being called a "racist"..........

Neighbors in Redlands were shocked that the suspects had ties to their area.

“I was in awe that it was happening four houses down from my property,” one neighbor said.

A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?'” he said. “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/authorities-search-redlands-home-tied-to-suspect-syed-farook/

Jelle1880

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem with debates like these is the pro-gun brigade look at each instance in isolation. This isn't one mass shooting, it's several hundred. There will undoubtedly be more next year.

In the next weeks you mean.

The amount of times it happens monthly is frightening.

Amazingfun

Good read here:

Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he had met online. The couple had a baby and appeared to be "living the American dream," said Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.

Baccari and Christian Nwadike said Farook, who worked with them for several years, rarely started a conversation. But the tall, thin young man with a full beard was well liked and spent much of his time out in the field.

They and other colleagues said Farook was a devout Muslim, but rarely discussed religion at work.

"He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious," said Griselda Reisinger, who worked with Farook before leaving the agency in May.

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

fed up sick and tired

Amazingfun wrote: »

Scared of being called a "racist"..........

I hope Nodin, Alastair, and their ilk are absorbing all of this, though I doubt it.

Stifling debate by cheap insults, smearing people with hysterical name-calling who don't share your world-view, derailing the discussion with loaded but irrelevant questions - profiling of a sort...

you are enablers of fascism.


banned

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem with debates like these is the pro-gun brigade look at each instance in isolation. This isn't one mass shooting, it's several hundred. There will undoubtedly be more next year.

I live in Ireland. Shooting is my sport/hobby. I stand up for the vast majority of gun owners who are fully licenced law abiding citizens.

I don't stand up for ar5eholes who commit crimes with their firearms and the full weight of the law should be thrown at them.

When it comes to debate about terrorists, criminals and guns, licenced gun owners are thrown into the mix when it's nothing to do with them.

The amount of legally licenced gun owners who commit crimes is a tiny tiny minority. Over 99% of us live normal, law abiding lives, we just happen to enjoy shooting. It's fully licenced and regulated here in Ireland.

Banning guns because of the actions of so few seems unfair in my opinion.

A tiny minority of gun owners commit crimes with their firearms and there is a clamour to ban guns.

A tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorist crimes. There's not much of a clamour to ban Muslims.

wes

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

I hope Nodin, Alastair, and their ilk are absorbing all of this, though I doubt it.

Stifling debate by cheap insults, smearing people with hysterical name-calling who don't share your world-view, derailing the discussion with loaded but irrelevant questions - profiling of a sort...

you are enablers of fascism.

You complain about cheap insults, while doing exactly that in regards to other posters. Its amazing that you are guilty of exactly what your accusing other posters of doing. Seriously the amount of hypocrisy is truly stunning.