Shooting in California

hatrickpatrick

People are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous by refusing to differentiate between organised crime and random psychos shooting people for ideological or personal reasons.

Yes, the former will always be able to have access to guns. There's very little that can be done about that. But if you make it so that guns are not legal for the majority of ordinary citizens to buy and access, then your random 25 year old ordinary person who just got fired, rejected and pulled over for speeding will have to take their aggression out in the gym or on a video game rather than actually killing people in order to work through their anger.

Most mass shootings in the US are committed by people who subsequently turn out to have mental health issues, or social rejection and bullying. Those same issues exist in Ireland, but in Ireland a teenager who just got beaten up by his crush's new BF can't buy a gun and shoot everyone in his class in revenge. At most he might beat the sh!te out of the guy, but that's it.

Personally I find it bizarre that so many people are deliberately ignoring this elephant in the room. It was widely documented that one of the recent mass shootings was probably committed by a guy who posted about it in advance on a web forum dedicated to people who experience social rejection. Now, I used to be one of those people and believe me I have every sympathy and respect for people who go through that as teenagers, but as I say the difference is I never had the option to go and shoot the people who made my life miserable, so instead I joined the gym, learned guitar, adopted a "you can't beat them physically, so become happier than they are and make them jealous" approach. That worked. But if irrational, emotional, hormonal 18 year old me could have bought himself a gun which could hold enough ammo for each of the 10 or so people who had made my life miserable? Who knows. I certainly fantasised about it often enough.

Now I agree that we have to tackle the root causes of bullying etc, but for God's sake people need to realise that measures like that will take time, probably generations, to see results. In the meantime, ordinary people need to be prevented from having access to firearms because it's a sad but simple fact that far too many ordinary people suffer from emotional and psychological health issues which make them unstable.

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, you do. NY is not all of the USA. It is that simple. If you want to disagree with the numbers on the racial breakdown of criminals in the whole of the USA, you need to argue against it for the whole USA, not just one city in it that accounts for 2.6% of the entire population. It's called cherry picking, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase.


Feel free to go ahead and do that then - but you're just doing what the FBI have already done, and the link has been posted several times in this thread. If you have an issue with them on this, I suggest you contact the FBI and let them know.

No one claimed New York City was "all of the USA"; I said we could start with New York City's stats.

You've already been shown evidence that the classification "white" re: FBI crime stats includes people such as EUSEBIO DELEON:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitiveDetails.aspx?id=270

Close up here: http://valleycentral.com/resources/media/ff9220a0-6705-42bf-ab6b-db959e79f43b-Chevo.jpg?1440577231400

No one would consider that man white, he is clearly non-white, a Hispanic.
But yet "Hispanic" crime is included in the "white" column.

But not in the New York City example.

So, yes, the numbers will be just about the same as the New York city ones when White and Hispanic crimes are separated.

take everything

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

JPNelsforearm

take everything wrote: »

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

Its a rifle, they passed background checks/their neighbors did. They also had up to twenty bombs and pipe bombs, which are illegal.... Legality does not matter to terrorists, as seen in Paris attacks.

TeaBagMania

It wasn’t a machine gun per say, machineguns are typically full automatic and used by the military. Hold the trigger and the gun will keep firing until you remove your finger from the trigger or run out of ammo.

The rifles they used were semi-automatic meaning you have to pull the trigger once for every round fired

That being said most semi-automatic rifles can be converted to full automatic rather easily and instructions can be find on the internet, however, this is VERY illegal and you’re looking at major jail time if caught

Paramite Pie

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

They couldn't have expected to get away with it and go on as normal with their baby. They must have known there were only two possible outcomes for them, shot by police or detained, charged, convicted, death penalty.

Orangebrigade

Piers Morgan should just shut up about gun control. It is NEVER going to happen, it is so ingrained in American culture.

Nekarsulm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And it all falls down with legal gun ownership in other countries not having mass shooting all the time.

Legal gun ownership in most other western countries involves fairly strict application processes.
Here in Ireland the prospective owner must show good reason to own one. hunting, or target shooting in an approved target club.
These are the ONLY reasons you can have a gun in this country.
( Unless you are a high Court Judge under threat from INLA, etc)
To get one for hunting you must either own the land on which you intend to hunt, or get written permission from the owner, you must provide folio numbers/ townland addresses of these land parcels.
You will need two references from people of good standing in the community.
You must agree to the Gardaí entering your home at any time, without a warrant, and inspecting your gun and its safe storage.
You must give the Gardaí permission to contact your Doctor and examine your private medical records whenever they wish.
Then you submit the 10 page application form, complete with photographs, to the local Superintendent and await his reply. Further info can be sought if he so wishes.
Permission/refusal can take up to six months. Usually less, in some cases only a month.

Some other European countries are stricter, others less so.

So you can see the vast difference between legal gun ownership here in Ireland, and walking into a gun store or wal-mart in the US and plonking your money on the counter and showing proof of residency .

listermint

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Legal gun ownership in most other western countries involves fairly strict application processes.
Here in Ireland the prospective owner must show good reason to own one. hunting, or target shooting in an approved target club.
These are the ONLY reasons you can have a gun in this country.
( Unless you are a high Court Judge under threat from INLA, etc)
To get one for hunting you must either own the land on which you intend to hunt, or get written permission from the owner, you must provide folio numbers/ townland addresses of these land parcels.
You will need two references from people of good standing in the community.
You must agree to the Gardaí entering your home at any time, without a warrant, and inspecting your gun and its safe storage.
You must give the Gardaí permission to contact your Doctor and examine your private medical records whenever they wish.
Then you submit the 10 page application form, complete with photographs, to the local Superintendent and await his reply. Further info can be sought if he so wishes.
Permission/refusal can take up to six months. Usually less, in some cases only a month.

Some other European countries are stricter, others less so.

So you can see the vast difference between legal gun ownership here in Ireland, and walking into a gun store or wal-mart in the US and plonking your money on the counter and showing proof of residency .

hey man there is like a 10 day waiting list before you can pick up that Semi Automatic.

Its hard yo

ceadaoin.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

Why is it apparent they planned to survive the attack? I'm sure they weren't that stupid to think killing people that were known to them and going head to head with the extremely well armed police would be a walk in the park.

Officials have said that during he attack his wife 'pledged allegiance' to ISIS on a Facebook account under a different name. I'm not sure why they are still holding back on calling this terrorism.

él statutorio

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why is it apparent they planned to survive the attack? I'm sure they weren't that stupid to think killing people that were known to them and going head to head with the extremely well armed police would be a walk in the park.

Officials have said that during he attack his wife 'pledged allegiance' to ISIS on a Facebook account under a different name. I'm not sure why they are still holding back on calling this terrorism.

Why?

I'll tell you why, because the right wing elements over here will lose their $hit. Having IS on US soil will be all the ammunition they need to bring hard core Islamophobia into the mainstream. Badges for Muslims and all that rubbish that Trump was spouting on about.

ceadaoin.

él statutorio wrote: »

Why?

I'll tell you why, because the right wing elements over here will lose their $hit. Having IS on US soil will be all the ammunition they need to bring hard core Islamophobia into the mainstream. Badges for Muslims and all that rubbish that Trump was spouting on about.

I had forgotten Trump said that. How anyone thinks this guy is serious candidate for president is beyond me. It's like he is just trolling everyone at this stage.

I guess you're right, it's pointless trying to read the reddit comments now because they are full of that sh!te. I suppose if they do say terrorism all the gun control talk goes out the window too.

It still seems wrong to play it off as workplace violence when that is clearly not what it was though. These people were murdered as an act of terrorism. Workplace violence kind of implies they had some hand in it which I've already seen in some articles claiming he was bullied for being Muslim, as if that justifies his actions.

lazza14

Why are the media holding back on calling this what it is ?

IS inspired terrorism ?

I will never understand the BBC and the Guardianista's support of Jihad ..

Bizarre.

bilston

In some respects this is a more terrifying attack than Paris as this appears to have been a "lone wolf" attack (albeit there were two of them) rather than a planned Daesh attack. Anyone could do this at anytime in any place. How the authorities prevent that sort of thing is beyond me.

Manic Moran

take everything wrote: »

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

They are not machine guns. California is one of the few States where such things are banned. Welcome, however, to the wonderful world of the difficulties of firearm legislation where it meets perception.

The Federal government (BATFE) has a definition of "machine gun" which, while not perfectly accurate, at least has the merit of being based around the mechanics of how the firearm works and is not subject to arbitrary decisions: More than one round is fired per pull of the trigger. In effect, when you pull the trigger, bullets keep coming out until the trigger is released, or you run out of bullets. These are what people ordinarily will imagine when they think of machine guns. The things the Army has, or the bad guys in Hollywood movies, etc. To my knowledge, the Federal definition is the only such legal definition of "machine gun". Assault rifles also fall under the "machine gun" category, incidentally.

Most other firearms are either semi automatic (one round per pull of trigger) or manual, such as bolt action. These sorts of firearms are all legal world wide, but with varying degrees of limitation. You are looking at semi automatic rifles.

California, and a few other jurisdictions, including between 1994 and 2004, the Federal government, has a category of semi automatic firearm called "assault weapon." (They had to invent the term as the firearms industry hasn't considered such a category). These are firearms which usually have a detachable magazine, and which also have a number of ergonomic or aesthetic features which make them externally resemble assault rifles. It doesn't make them any more dangerous than other magazine fed semi autos of the same calibre, but they look evil, according to some.

Mechanically there is no difference between a traditional configuration semi auto rifle and an "assault weapon".

Visual examples:
This is a Mini 14, a very popular sporting rifle, in a common hunting configuration (small magazine)
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/files/2007/07/RSranch_071807D-4.jpg

This is a California legal mini 14.
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4fcfbddaa02c6394e9b27f8d554ca0fa?convert_to_webp=true

This a Mini 14 which is illegal in California as an "assault weapon".
http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/attachments/mini-14-mini-30-gallery/22394d1341699503-post-your-mini-porn-pu-edit-1-jpg

Somewhere in between those three are the Mini 14s used by the A-Team.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Brandiwynter/media/4_zpsxafnkzf6.jpg.html

It's all down to external furniture, the interior mechanism is all the same. Takes about three minutes with a screwdriver to change from one configuration to another. The assault weapon one is a bit lighter, and a easier to hold because of the hand grip, but that's it. CA law has a few other quirks involving balancing out the ergonomic/aesthetics with the magazine release mechanism, but you don't need to worry about that right now.

As a point of comparison, this is an M1 Garand, arguably the best weapon in WW2. Very popular in the years after WW2, still collected today. It also is a semi automatic rifle, but fires much bigger rounds than the Mini 14. This is literally a weapon of war. (Mini 14s generally are not accepted for military use.)

http://s25.postimg.org/8rh1dlucv/43_WRA_M1_Garand_2899.jpg

Unfortunately, firearms legislation world wide, epecially in Europe) is littered with what the boards shooting forum calls "Idunlikedalookadat" laws, restricting weapons as "assault rifles or weapons which look like assault rifles", a very subjective description which two people may not agree upon, and which doesn't reflect the relative danger the weapons pose.

Of all the arguments which have been put forward on Boards with respect to restricting the types of weapons available, the only ones which have any practical merit are those which focus on the semi auto vs bolt action debate. It is a clear, mechanical distinction, and has an effect on the firearm's capability and utility. That said, a huge majority of firearms in the US are semi-auto for a number of reasons, and the perceived bolt action safety is debatable.

That help?

JPNelsforearm

They pledged allegiance to ISIS, you can stop talking about gun control and start talking about border control


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-female-shooter-reportedly-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-investigators-believe-a6760721.html

ceadaoin.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

They pledged allegiance to ISIS, you can stop talking about gun control and start talking about border control


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-female-shooter-reportedly-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-investigators-believe-a6760721.html

How would border control have helped? The guy was US born and raised

bnt

There's news being reported that one of the shooters had pledged her allegiance to Islamic State, and so that would make this a "terrorist" attack.

I'm not so quick to make that connection, however. The point of a terrorist attack is to instil terror. but for that to work there can be no confusion about the intent of the attack - as there is in this case.

Nekarsulm

I think they (USA) don't want to acknowledge that this is an example of domestic terrorism, as opposed to "foreign" attackers. As indeed Timothy McVeigh was.
Much easier to control people's emotions if the feel they are being attacked by "outside" forces. Not so easy if the terrorist is a Municipal restaurant inspector from down the street.

youreadthat

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I think they (USA) don't want to acknowledge that this is an example of domestic terrorism, as opposed to "foreign" attackers. As indeed Timothy McVeigh was.
Much easier to control people's emotions if the feel they are being attacked by "outside" forces. Not so easy if the terrorist is a Municipal restaurant inspector from down the street.

His wife's Pakistani..

Nekarsulm

youreadthat wrote: »

His wife's Pakistani..

Correct, but he is American.

kettlehead

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How would border control have helped? The guy was US born and raised

The wife came over on a K1 visa.

The woman who helped kill 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino on Wednesday arrived in the United States last year on a special visa reserved for the fiancés of U.S. citizens.

Tashfeen Malik, who was born in Pakistan, gained legal permanent resident status last year after she married Syed Rizwan Farook, her co-conspirator in Wednesday’s deadly shooting.

The attack has brought new attention to the previously obscure K1 visa program, with some advocates for stricter immigration enforcement calling for investigations into the nation’s visa screening process and calling for the U.S. to halt its Syrian refugees program.


“New information coming to light regarding Tashfeen Malik’s citizenship reaffirms the fact that proper screening and vetting those coming into our country, whether with a visa or as a refugee, is not always possible,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for stricter immigration laws.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-tashfeen-malik-20151203-story.html

Amazingfun

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I had forgotten Trump said that. How anyone thinks this guy is serious candidate for president is beyond me. It's like he is just trolling everyone at this stage..

No,Trump NEVER said "badges for muslims", lol....he spoke of a database, which in this case would have been very helpful.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amazingfun wrote: »

No,Trump NEVER said "badges for muslims", lol....he spoke of a database, which in this case would have been very helpful.

Yeah, nobody will commit acts of terrorism if they are in a database.

Amazingfun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Yeah, nobody will commit acts of terrorism if they are in a database.

Cute, except they may have been better able to coordinate law enforcement efforts had they been tracked.

Anyways: these are the reasons Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President

The Randy Riverbeast

Amazingfun wrote: »

Cute, except they may have been better able to coordinate law enforcement efforts had they been tracked.

Anyways: these are the reasons Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President

So you agree it wouldnt have stopped it.

Amazingfun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

So you agree it wouldnt have stopped it.

No, I didn't say anything of the sort, because no one knows the effect such action would have.......yet. And that includes you.

ceadaoin.

Amazingfun wrote: »

Cute, except they may have been better able to coordinate law enforcement efforts had they been tracked.

Anyways: these are the reasons Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President

His name was mentioned very early on in the investigation. Practically as soon as the shooting occurred his name was heard multiple times on the police scanners and posted online. The police were able to trace him fairly quickly, he was caught going back too his house where the police were already waiting.

Seems well co-ordinated to me. Obviously the database they already have works pretty well

My name is URL

Amazingfun wrote: »

Anyways: these are the reasons Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President

He's certainly popular amongst idiots. The US has no shortage of those

Do you also agree with Trump's suggestion and plan to kill family members of suspected ISIS operatives?

Cute, except they may have been better able to coordinate law enforcement efforts had they been tracked.

You are just clueless. The guy openly supported ISIS on his social media pages, and despite the billions spent on intel every year by US agencies, they failed to identify him as a threat. How would a database of muslims change that?