San Bernardino Shooting

[msommers]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34987697

:( Something is fundamentally wrong in the US.


Police are attending a shooting in California, with reports of 20 victims.
The San Bernardino Fire Department tweeted that it was responding to a "20 victim shooting incident" and it was working to clear the scene.
It is still a "very active scene" and police are trying to secure the building, said a spokeswoman from the San Bernardino Police Department.
There may be up to three gunmen she said, and the shooters were heavily armed and possibly wearing body armour.
She did not confirm the number of victims.
A local reporter tweeted that people are being evacuated from the Inland Regional Center, a non-profit medical and health organisation.

[vengie]

Originally posted by msommers
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34987697

:( Something is fundamentally wrong in the WORLD.



Fixed.

RIP to the victims.

[Rocket1k78]

:(

So sad and scary that this is happening more and more

[FraserB]

They should immediately implement magazine restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, prohibitions on certain guns and an "assault weapons" law.

If they had these laws, this would not have happened.

[phreezee]

Bomb threat in PA too http://fox43.com/2015/12/02/hacc-harrisburg-campus-evacuated/

[revelations]

Not something worth focusing on, esp in Canada, but here are some chart representation of mass shooting in America the past 5 years.

https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america/charts

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FraserB
They should immediately implement magazine restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, prohibitions on certain guns and an "assault weapons" law.

If they had these laws, this would not have happened.

I've spoken at length with a friend of mine who works in corrections, and, from his perspective, the lack of universal health care is one of the biggest reasons why this is happening so often in the US. Because people can't afford to get diagnosed/treated, a lot of mental illnesses go unchecked until it basically boils over. Mix that with a gun culture and fairly lax gun regulation, it's a recipe for mass shootings.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I've spoken at length with a friend of mine who works in corrections, and, from his perspective, the lack of universal health care is one of the biggest reasons why this is happening so often in the US. Because people can't afford to get diagnosed/treated, a lot of mental illnesses go unchecked until it basically boils over. Mix that with a gun culture and fairly lax gun regulation, it's a recipe for mass shootings.

My post was sarcasm for the folks who would eventually come in and say those things would have stopped this.

California already has all the things I mentioned and has some the most restrictive gun laws in the US.

[n1zm0]

And the location of this incident is even more saddening too, I mean a place that helps developmentally disabled people, wtf??


Originally posted by revelations
Not something worth focusing on, esp in Canada, but here are some chart representation of mass shooting in America the past 5 years.

https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america/charts

Over the past year, 355 including this one today in California:

http://i.imgur.com/oQro0B8.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/

[FraserB]

Keep in mind there is no official definition of mass shooting. The “accepted” and most widely used come from mass shooting tracker, which is a crowd sourced website. The FBI only has a definition for mass killing

[01RedDX]

.

[sexualbanana]

One of my favourite (for lack of a better term) discussions that occurs whenever these kinds of shootings happen:

Them: Guns don't kill people. Disturbed people kill people.
Me: Great. So get universal health care.
Them: Why should I pay for the health of others?

[sputnik]

They are only mentally ill if they are white.

If they are brown, they are terrorists.

[01RedDX]

.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
So the fact that California is surrounded by states with lax gun laws has no bearing then? :confused:

Once they bring the prohibited/controlled item across sate lines, they are committing a felony and are a criminal. Words on a piece of paper aren't going to keep people from committing crimes where they either illegally acquire an item or illegally modify what is available.

- Mag limits do nothing for safety and don't prevent criminal acts.

- "Assault weapon" bans don't make any sense since the definition has been distorted by politicians for political reasons.

- Background checks will tell you if someone is allowed to purchase from a point of sale where the check is being conducted.

- FA firearms are heavily regulated and are essentially impossible for the average person to acquire.

- A registry doesn't really stop crime, all it can really do is indicate where guns are so they can be confiscated once the decision to do so has been made.

All the money wasted on measures that make good sound bites would be better spent on mental health and implementing measures that might make a difference in safety.

[killramos]

So why are people talking about mental illness when there are 3 shooters? They break out of a mental hospital or something? 3 people all snap at the same time and place?

Anyone considered that they are just bad people out to hurt a ton of people?

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by sputnik

They are only mentally ill if they are white.

If they are brown, they are terrorists.


Unfortunately...this...

[g-m]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Up to 12 dead at this point and 3 shooters on the loose. Very sad, 2-3 days at least until people forget about this one. People won't forget because they never cared to begin with. I honestly couldn't care less about this kind of thing down south and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't even finish reading the headline. Bill 6 is a much bigger deal

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by vengie


Fixed.

RIP to the victims.

Obama: pattern of mass shooters, no parralels anywhere else in world. Some steps we can take not to eliminate all shootings but improve the odds.

The US is indeed fucked up for being considered a first world country.

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by EK 2.0



Unfortunately...this...

.

[vengie]

Originally posted by FraserB

- Mag limits do nothing for safety and don't prevent criminal acts.


I agree with everything you have said, except this point.

Limiting the capacity of the firearm limits the viability of that firearm to do mass harm. Take our 5 round magazines as an example, to kill on a mass scale you would need to carry a large amount of magazines and constantly be reloading. This can become cumbersome and would allow more individuals the opportunity to escape and or subdue the shooter.

Its the same reason you don't see mass shooters running around with a bolt action rifle.

Also, give me one good reason why you would need a 20+rd magazine aside from inflicting mass harm. For hunting purposes? My rifle doesn't have more than 3 rds in it at any given time. If you're unable to drop your animal with 1 shot you should not be hunting and or own a firearm.

[max_boost]

Yea this sucks, AGAIN.

More Americans are killed by their own than any terrorist group ever will. Take care of your own first. :nut:

[sputnik]

Streaming San Bernardino police scanner.

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/12443/web

[killramos]

Originally posted by vengie

Also, give me one good reason why you would need a 20+rd magazine aside from inflicting mass harm. For hunting purposes? My rifle doesn't have more than 3 rds in it at any given time. If you're unable to drop your animal with 1 shot you should not be hunting and or own a firearm.

When target shooting its pretty convenient to have to reload less often. Takes less time to load a single 20 round than to load 4 5 rounders. Takes up less space. Using an LAR-15 mag ( 10 rounds ) in my rifle i shoot 3 groups without having to take my eye off target or get out of the zone. I have a bag full of pinned to 5 30 rounders, that would take 15 seconds to modify to full capacity, it would be great to be able to go 30 rounds without having to switch magazines. Also alot of benefit if you are interested in active target shooting. 5 rounds is nothing when navigating a course where you might have to take 2-3 shots to down a target.

My 22 has a 25 round magazine and its great to just load that up and shoot for a few minutes without reloading.

Target shooting is a perfectly reasonable use for civilians. Not everything is about hunting Mr. Biden ( i kid ).

Anyways the gun debate never really goes anywhere on here :dunno:

[vengie]

Originally posted by killramos


When target shooting its pretty convenient to have to reload less often. Takes less time to load a single 20 round than to load 4 5 rounders. Takes up less space. Using an LAR-15 mag ( 10 rounds ) in my rifle i shoot 3 groups without having to take my eye off target or get out of the zone. I have a bag full of pinned to 5 30 rounders, that would take 15 seconds to modify to full capacity, it would be great to be able to go 30 rounds without having to switch magazines. Also alot of benefit if you are interested in active target shooting. 5 rounds is nothing when navigating a course where you might have to take 2-3 shots to down a target.

My 22 has a 25 round magazine and its great to just load that up and shoot for a few minutes without reloading.

Target shooting is a perfectly reasonable use for civilians. Not everything is about hunting Mr. Biden ( i kid ).

Anyways the gun debate never really goes anywhere on here :dunno:

I hear you, I also target shoot. BUT I still do not see that as a viable NEED to have a higher capacity magazine.

[BavarianBeast]

I use a 30 round banana clip or a 100 round drum in my 22 for hunting varmint.

Reloading 10 at a time is a major pain in the ass.

Reducing capacity isn't going to change anything. Not very hard load 6-7 mags and keep them on you either.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by vengie


I agree with everything you have said, except this point.

Limiting the capacity of the firearm limits the viability of that firearm to do mass harm. Take our 5 round magazines as an example, to kill on a mass scale you would need to carry a large amount of magazines and constantly be reloading. This can become cumbersome and would allow more individuals the opportunity to escape and or subdue the shooter.

Its the same reason you don't see mass shooters running around with a bolt action rifle.

Also, give me one good reason why you would need a 20+rd magazine aside from inflicting mass harm. For hunting purposes? My rifle doesn't have more than 3 rds in it at any given time. If you're unable to drop your animal with 1 shot you should not be hunting and or own a firearm.

Removing the limit on a magazine takes under a minute. I seriously doubt the person who is going to go shoot a bunch of people will let a five cent rivet stop him from having full capacity magazines.

This is all not considering that it takes about a second to change mags and have the gun ready to go again.

As for your rifle with three rounds, that's mandated by hunting regulations. Target shooting and competition would benefit from standard capacity mags.

[vengie]

Originally posted by FraserB


Removing the limit on a magazine takes under a minute. I seriously doubt the person who is going to go shoot a bunch of people will let a five cent rivet stop him from having full capacity magazines.

This is all not considering that it takes about a second to change mags and have the gun ready to go again.

As for your rifle with three rounds, that's mandated by hunting regulations. Target shooting and competition would benefit from standard capacity mags.

Assuming someone is proficient and trained in the use of a firearm and gun smithing, sure... The majority of these individuals simply look for the most convenient way to kill in a short period of time. You are under estimating the power of "laziness". Will it prevent all mass shootings? no, probably not. But if it prevents even one then the change is worth it.

Do you think the majority of these individuals are well trained? Judging by the casualty to shots fired ratio I would say not.

[FraserB]

Without going into specifics, there is no gunsmithing needed to modify the capacity of a magazine.

And the “if it saves one life” argument is incredibly annoying. If we followed that, we'd ban cars, booze, knives, power tools and a while bunch of other things. It basically comes down to people not using something and as a result, don't care how their demands, no matter how ridicluous or unfoubded, impact others.

[vengie]

Originally posted by FraserB
Without going into specifics, there is no gunsmithing needed to modify the capacity of a magazine.

And the “if it saves one life” argument is incredibly annoying. If we followed that, we'd ban cars, booze, knives, power tools and a while bunch of other things. It basically comes down to people not using something and as a result, don't care how their demands, no matter how ridicluous or unfoubded, impact others.

Yes I am quite aware how to modify, but my point stand, the majority of these individuals are lazy as hell and have no interest in modifying weaponry, they simply want to inflict harm.

You're a far right wing gun nut, I get it, I used to be as well. But there is absolutely no practical reason to have high capacity magazines unless its for "blasting shit" or killing. Its the people with that mindset who caused the homestead range to be shut down.

[vengie]

Unrelated, shit is going crazy on that police scanner, in pursuit/ firefight with suspects.

[BavarianBeast]

watch it live instead;

http://abc7.com/live/

[01RedDX]

.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by vengie


Yes I am quite aware how to modify, but my point stand, the majority of these individuals are lazy as hell and have no interest in modifying weaponry, they simply want to inflict harm.
...

I'm not convinced you are aware how to modify those magazines. It really is, in fact, a 15 second job which I would expect even the laziest of criminals to do. And if a person has an interest in inflicting harm, they have an interest in drilling out a pin in their mag so they can inflict more harm. Pinned mags are a red herring with regards to preventing mass killings.:hijack:

[vengie]

Le sigh... Look at the whole picture, not a single small detail. The mindset specifically. Deranged, angry and wanting to do damage RIGHT NOW.

Killaramos is right, gun debates go nowhere. :nut:

[01RedDX]

.

[adamc]

I love target shooting, I love going camping and shooting clays, I would happily give both of those things up if it meant getting rid of guns completely and seeing an end to this mass shooting epidemic.

[SKR]

Originally posted by vengie
Le sigh...

Don't fucking do that again.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by SKR


Don't fucking do that again.

Wow, so emo, yet so masculine at the same time. You are a walking contradiction and I bet everyone is paying attention to your post. :love:

[vengie]

Originally posted by SKR


Don't fucking do that again.

Panties in a knot big boy?

[OTown]

Originally posted by killramos
So why are people talking about mental illness when there are 3 shooters? They break out of a mental hospital or something? 3 people all snap at the same time and place?

Anyone considered that they are just bad people out to hurt a ton of people?

People are too naive to believe that people would willingly go do this. There are tons of bad people out there but hey, if people want to live in their bubble its up to them I guess.

[Canucks3322]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
One possible suspect's name leaked, Farooq Saeed and another may have been a Muslim woman, both reports unconfirmed, third suspect remains at large.

Read this too....not looking good for the refugee cause...but why target mentally disabled people?!?! Should I even try making sense of any of this? So fucked......RIP to the victims.

[rx7_turbo2]

It just seems like such a bizarre location choice for this to be a terrorist attack, but these are strange times so who knows.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

From the sounds of it, he was an employee of the facility that he shot up and angrily left a company function shortly before the shooting.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Canucks3322


Read this too....not looking good for the refugee cause...but why target mentally disabled people?!?! Should I even try making sense of any of this? So fucked......RIP to the victims.

Why is it not looking good for the refugee cause?

[n1zm0]

Originally posted by FraserB
Why is it not looking good for the refugee cause?

I think he meant because people will always pull out their jump to conclusions mat, especially in a country like America.


Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
From the sounds of it, he was an employee of the facility that he shot up and angrily left a company function shortly before the shooting.

Apparently he was a health food inspector though, I thought the building was for disabilities? And why would his wife be taking part in the shooting too?

Who knows at this point but so many things to speculate, people will always jump to conclusions given the limited information so far:



�Police believe that 28-year-old Syed Rizwan Farook, an inspector with the department, left the party following a dispute and returned with his partner, 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik, to carry out the shooting.

�The suspects were armed with two "long guns" - rifles or shotguns - and two semi-automatic handguns and wore dark, military-style clothing, police said. They killed 14 people and wounded 17 more.

�Police engaged in a shoot-out with the suspects as they attempted to flee the scene in a dark SUV, and killed both. A third person seen running from the area was detained, but police said it was unclear whether the person was involved.

�Several possible explosive devices were found at the scene, police said. San Bernardino police chief Jarrod Burguan said there "had to be some degree of planning" behind the attack.

The attackers

Police engaged in a firefight with two suspects in a black SUV, killing both

Farook and Malik were in a relationship and possibly married. Police officials said Farook had worked for the county public health department for five years.

Two colleagues who survived the attack told the LA Times they were shocked to hear Farook's name linked to the shooting. He was quiet and polite with no obvious grudges, they said.

Farook recently travelled to Saudi Arabia, according to the Times, and returned with a new wife he had met online. The couple had a baby and appeared to be "living the American dream," Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector, told the paper.

The couple dropped their six-month-old daughter with Farook's mother in Redlands, according to the LA Times report. The grandmother reportedly grew worried when she heard about the shooting and attempted to reach her son by phone but failed.

The third person who was detained has not been identified, but Mr Burguan said police believe there were only two shooters.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34993344

[BavarianBeast]

From what I read, they left their kid at home with Grandma to go to a 'doctors appt'

When the Grandma saw the shooting on the TV, she became concerned.

Not to jump to conclusions but if the grandma was concerned than they probably had some extremist ideologies they were willing to carry out..

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by n1zm0
I thought the building was for disabilities?

Sounds like the building was unrelated? It just happened to be where the function was being held.


Originally posted by BavarianBeast
Not to jump to conclusions but if the grandma was concerned than they probably had some extremist ideologies they were willing to carry out..

Ya I wonder. It almost sounds like they were extremists with something planned for the future, but when something went "wrong" at this function they decided to act out whatever they had planned at this function instead.

Lots of speculation, but this isn't as clear as the Paris attacks that's for sure.

[lilmira]

How the hell do you explain to the kid what happened?

[Canmorite]

There was a tweet about this after Sandy Hook that sums up the gun debate in America:


In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

https://mobile.twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/611943312401002496?lang=en

The US continues to do nothing and not enough people give a shit to change it.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by n1zm0


Apparently he was a health food inspector though, I thought the building was for disabilities? And why would his wife be taking part in the shooting too?


No idea, just relaying what was being reported on the radio this morning.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Canmorite
The US continues to do nothing and not enough people give a shit to change it.

By all accounts the weapons used were acquired legally (not all by the perpetrator however) in a State with pretty strict gun laws

I don't think it's a matter of people not giving a shit, I think it has more to do with people not knowing what to do to fix this.

Some asshat on CNN last night had the balls to say "This keeps happening and it's sad because it's so easily prevented" :banghead: This problem is INCREDIBLY complex. This theory that the simple act of banning all guns will solve it is ridiculous.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by killramos


When target shooting its pretty convenient to have to reload less often. Takes less time to load a single 20 round than to load 4 5 rounders. Takes up less space.


Originally posted by BavarianBeast

Reducing capacity isn't going to change anything. Not very hard load 6-7 mags and keep them on you either.

So the jist of it is: it's inconvenient for the shooter because reloading takes time. Time which could be better served shooting. Correct?


Originally posted by BavarianBeast

Reloading 10 at a time is a major pain in the ass.



Life is tough. I sympathize.

But really, what are we talking about here? Time and space, right?

The time it takes to fire 30 rounds from a single magazine vs the time it takes to fire 30 rounds from 6 magazine;

and...

The space it takes to hold 6 5-round magazines vs the space it takes to hold a single 30-round magazine.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by sexualbanana




So the jist of it is: it's inconvenient for the shooter because reloading takes time. Time which could be better served shooting. Correct?



Life is tough. I sympathize.

But really, what are we talking about here? Time and space, right?

The time it takes to fire 30 rounds from a single magazine vs the time it takes to fire 30 rounds from 6 magazine;

and...

The space it takes to hold 6 5-round magazines vs the space it takes to hold a single 30-round magazine.

Do you honestly think someone who is committing this type of crime is going to care about mag limits? At the end of the day, magazine restrictions are words; someone who is planning to go out and murder a bunch of people isn't going to reconsider once he realizes he is in possession of a prohibited device when he loads the mags to normal capacity.

[Nitro5]

Well it's there any info if their guns conformed to Cali law regarding a bullet button, pistol grip, or flash suppressor?

[JustinL]

In my opinion it's a cultural problem with America. Guns are glorified and seen as symbols of power. Diplomacy and discourse are seen as weakness. In America taking away a person's guns is seen as making them powerless. Here in Canada for the most part we see guns as tools and we don't grab the gun as the first solution to every problem. I think that's something to be proud of. Gun culture in the US is so pervasive that it would take more than the government to impose restrictions. I agree with the quote above, if Sandy Hook didn't shift the debate, nothing will.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Nitro5
Well it's there any info if their guns conformed to Cali law regarding a bullet button, pistol grip, or flash suppressor?

They said the guns were purchased legally.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JustinL
In my opinion it's a cultural problem with America.

Completely agree. As I've pointed out time and again, anybody could do this in Canada, but they don't.

Just like terrorism and how you can't stop the people from committing the acts, the fact is, there is nothing stopping someone with a gun, knife, or even baseball bat from committing some serious damage to a community.

Of course, where I disagree with some is that if you had measures to defend yourself, it would even out. I truly do believe that to be the case, as it IS also logical. They have a gun, you have nothing? They win. You both have guns? 50/50.

The biggest problem is the assumption that life is always worth protecting 100% no matter what. Not only is this illogical, it is also impractical. From there stems a whole bunch of poorly written social engineering policy. But I digress.

[SilverRex]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Completely agree. As I've pointed out time and again, anybody could do this in Canada, but they don't.

Just like terrorism and how you can't stop the people from committing the acts, the fact is, there is nothing stopping someone with a gun, knife, or even baseball bat from committing some serious damage to a community.

Of course, where I disagree with some is that if you had measures to defend yourself, it would even out. I truly do believe that to be the case, as it IS also logical. They have a gun, you have nothing? They win. You both have guns? 50/50.

The biggest problem is the assumption that life is always worth protecting 100% no matter what. Not only is this illogical, it is also impractical. From there stems a whole bunch of poorly written social engineering policy. But I digress.

imo, even if everyone had a gun I think it will still be a 65 to 35 affair simply because no one expects to be in a real gun fight and I doubt everyone will be well trained enough to win half the time.

I recall one line from somewhere that the biggest challenge in these shootings is that the attackers often have no fear of dying and hence creates an immense tactical advantage.

in short, it is extremely difficult to defend yourself when you some how become a random target, by the time you realize whats happening your bleeding to death on the floor.

[lilmira]

Picture all the people who can't drive, now give them guns, great times, pew pew!

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by SilverRex


imo, even if everyone had a gun I think it will still be a 65 to 35 affair simply because no one expects to be in a real gun fight and I doubt everyone will be well trained enough to win half the time.

I recall one line from somewhere that the biggest challenge in these shootings is that the attackers often have no fear of dying and hence creates an immense tactical advantage.

in short, it is extremely difficult to defend yourself when you some how become a random target, by the time you realize whats happening your bleeding to death on the floor.

That's a fair assessment. I guess I was more thinking "home-invasion" then "middle of the mall". I'd rather someone have a chance at all though. And I do agree that guns do make it easier to kill someone (because "duh", of course they do).

[JustinL]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

Of course, where I disagree with some is that if you had measures to defend yourself, it would even out. I truly do believe that to be the case, as it IS also logical. They have a gun, you have nothing? They win. You both have guns? 50/50.


The problem with arming everyone is that the assumption is that there are more heroes than nutcases. Every nutcase thinks they are a hero. People like to say to themselves "If I was there with my gun, I would have totally been the hero and stopped that". That almost never happens in reality. The more likely case is that Mr. Readytobeahero gets popcorn tossed at him in a theater and decides that this gun I'm packing will solve this problem.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JustinL


I would have totally been the hero and stopped that". That almost never happens in reality. The more likely case is that Mr. Readytobeahero gets popcorn tossed at him in a theater and decides that this gun I'm packing will solve this problem.

I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun :dunno: And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) :rofl: Ratings galore!

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FraserB


Do you honestly think someone who is committing this type of crime is going to care about mag limits? At the end of the day, magazine restrictions are words; someone who is planning to go out and murder a bunch of people isn't going to reconsider once he realizes he is in possession of a prohibited device when he loads the mags to normal capacity.

But they also shouldn't be commercially available. There's no logical reason to have drum magazines (like the one the Aurora shooter had). There are lots of videos on YT of guys unloading giant drum magazines, and admittedly it looks entertaining but it quickly dawns on you that part of its appeal is exactly what some people have said: to cause maximum carnage in as little time possible.

I'm not saying magazine capacity is the magic wand that will put an end to these mass shootings, but they shouldn't be easily accessible/purchasable either.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun :dunno: And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) :rofl: Ratings galore!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about a different scenario. Self-defense is one matter, but within the context of mass shootings and active shooter scenarios, I don't think adding more people with guns is going to help. In my opinion, it would just add to the confusion of 'who's the bad guy, who's the good guy?'.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about a different scenario. Self-defense is one matter, but within the context of mass shootings and active shooter scenarios, I don't think adding more people with guns is going to help. In my opinion, it would just add to the confusion of 'who's the bad guy, who's the good guy?'.

Put yourself in a mass shooting scenario.

A gun man (men?) runs into an area with lots of people that you are in. You have no way to exit, there really isn't anywhere to hide.

What would you rather do? Sit and cower and maybe get lucky you don't get shot/killed? That would be the LAST thing to do on my mind. But maybe I'm not typical? I've been in stressful, dangerous situations with people, and you quickly learn what kind of individual they are on their most basic level when they turn into a whiny pile of tears who literally can't move.

All of your scenarios are hypothetical. My scenario is not. I am very against removing people's means of defending their lives. I don't agree with lax US gun rules, Canada does a good job, but obviously I can't carry a gun here. Then again, I don't have to worry about random people killing me.

[JustinL]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun :dunno: And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) :rofl: Ratings galore!

I think we are arguing different points, sorry for the confusion. I believe you are suggesting that in the case where you are under attack you should use whatever means are at your disposal to defend yourself (agreed). I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner". I do not believe that more people with guns makes a society safer, especially a society where the gun is seen as the ultimate symbol of power. My argument is that a more armed society is not safer based purely on the fact that even people who think of themselves as "good" have the capacity to do bad stuff. The case I was using I think illustrates that pretty well.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-surveillance-video-showing-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JustinL

I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner".

I see, yes, we definitely were arguing different things, I don't think it would necessarily stop mass shootings earlier either. From my perspective, as we both agree this is a cultural issue, people may not want the culture to change. If people don't want the culture to change, then laws that make sense for the culture need to be adopted.

Whether that entails more or less guns, better/different enforcement I am unsure.

[zipdoa]

Some interesting propaganda on my FB feed.

http://i.imgur.com/YLxbDHE.png

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


But they also shouldn't be commercially available. There's no logical reason to have drum magazines (like the one the Aurora shooter had). There are lots of videos on YT of guys unloading giant drum magazines, and admittedly it looks entertaining but it quickly dawns on you that part of its appeal is exactly what some people have said: to cause maximum carnage in as little time possible.

I'm not saying magazine capacity is the magic wand that will put an end to these mass shootings, but they shouldn't be easily accessible/purchasable either.

I get what you're saying, but the problem with that logic is people so often just apply strictly it to guns, when it also would need to apply to all sorts of different things that can (and do) easily kill people if the goal is increased public safety.

This debate never seems to go anywhere. Both sides have valid points, but it's just impossible to draw the line.

There is no logical reason to have *A LOT* of things, other than "because I can" or "because it's fun" or any other number of reasons that may not make sense to the next guy. Guns & magazines are no different. A small percentage of people are always going to use things irresponsibly either intentionally or unintentionally to harm others, no matter what it is. We don't need 400HP cars to get to the grocery store, bad drivers kill far more people than 'mass' shootings do every year, etc. It's all relative. Guns have very reasonable purposes other than killing people, just like cars have purposes other than getting into fatal collisions, or any other number of comparisons you may want to make. Irresponsible use and/or mental illness is the issue IMHO.

As mentioned before, 5 minutes with a couple tools in Canada can give you un-capped magazines and legally acquired assault rifles and pistols are extremely easy to obtain, yet we don't have nearly the amount of shootings even considering the population difference. To me that suggests a problem with the people, not the product.

The problem with banning or heavily restricting something just because it can so easily harm others is that you would have to do the same with *so many* other things if that was the logic - cars, cigarettes, alcohol, knives, airplanes, etc. Everyone has an opinion on where that line should be drawn (usually based on their personal preferred usage of said items) and I don't think it's something two groups will ever agree on.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by JustinL


I think we are arguing different points, sorry for the confusion. I believe you are suggesting that in the case where you are under attack you should use whatever means are at your disposal to defend yourself (agreed). I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner". I do not believe that more people with guns makes a society safer, especially a society where the gun is seen as the ultimate symbol of power. My argument is that a more armed society is not safer based purely on the fact that even people who think of themselves as "good" have the capacity to do bad stuff. The case I was using I think illustrates that pretty well.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-surveillance-video-showing-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252

This is a great example of why more guns, and, as the author calls it "the normalizing of open carry" can be a problem. This could have been stopped earlier but unfortunately due to the laws, he technically hasn't done anything wrong until it's too late.

I'd also recommend clicking on the link to the 911 call.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-price-of-normalizing_b_8521488.html

Giving everyone a gun is, in it's most basic form, endorsing vigilante-ism. Most vigilantes, by definition, aren't trained well enough, or at all, to handle these kinds of situations. For example:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/man-shopping-for-coffee-creamer-at-walmart-attacked-by-vigilante-for/2214432

EDIT: Mixed around the links.

[hjr]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Some asshat on CNN last night had the balls to say "This keeps happening and it's sad because it's so easily prevented" :banghead: This problem is INCREDIBLY complex. This theory that the simple act of banning all guns will solve it is ridiculous.

except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

[adamc]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Some asshat on CNN last night had the balls to say "This keeps happening and it's sad because it's so easily prevented" :banghead: This problem is INCREDIBLY complex. This theory that the simple act of banning all guns will solve it is ridiculous.


I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by adamc



I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

Civil war.

[HuMz]

As more information surfaces this is looking more and more like an act of Jihad. The coming days will most likely reveal the some terror links abroad. Gun control isn't the problem here, they had 3 pipe bombs brought to the scene with essentially a bomb making factory going on in their garage, along with the guns being bought legally. Take the guns away and it would have been bombs going off like it is during most Jihadi attacks.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by hjr


except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

Australia didn't say "no more guns" they said certain guns are no longer allowed. Still lots of guns in Australia.
Over 750,000 people own guns in Australia.

So you have almost a million people capable of mass murder, this guys comments only play to the actions of the vast minority of gun owners. No matter if you only have 1 gun in the country there is still the chance for evil.

Hunters are not immune to evil.

[Canucks3322]

You guys are all debating the wrong thing anyways.. The guy went to Saudi a year ago, came back with a "wife" and grew a beard... Come on... Seriously.... Like it or not this the new reality, we are going to all have to live like Israel to even have aa hope of survival...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by hjr


except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

Yes we've all seen the Jim Jeffries bit, thanks for being "that guy" and posting it again :rofl: Here's a tip, it's a comedy bit, it's funny, it doesn't accurately reflect what actually happened in Australia, or the fundamental and complex differences in their gun violence vs the USA. If you've seen Jim live he usually makes that pretty clear in his preface to the joke itself. Side note if you want to get a good chuckle follow Jim on Facebook, he loves to get Americans all worked up about this.



Originally posted by adamc
I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

Ya me too. Ban all guns and see what happens. I'm neither a gun owner or an American so makes little difference to me. I guess I should be clearer, it's my opinion that an all out ban on firearms in The States probably wouldn't accomplish much, never mind the crazy logistics and expense it would take to achieve it. I believe the money would be far better spent on addressing the serious deficiency in mental health care in that country, which as many experts have said is probably a bigger contributor to these situations than the weapons themselves.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun :dunno:

Chances are, if somebody comes at you with a knife or gun with no preamble, you're never gonna see it until you're shot or stabbed.

[01RedDX]

.

[zipdoa]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/71c14fa423b9cab02bf2698bd6d1ef33/tumblr_nvwv2tMkhp1ugoppuo1_500.jpg

[01RedDX]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
But no, let's keep using red herrings like "mental health."

Red Herrings like mental health, alrighty then :nut:

You're right mental health plays no role in this, it's just normal people with easy access to guns and nothing better to do I guess.

Is dealing with the serious lack of access to mental health professionals for those that need it the only solution? No of course not, but calling it a Red Herring like it plays no role at all is just blatantly ignorant.

[01RedDX]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Look no further than other socially similar nations like Canada, Australia and Britain, which have a very similar prevalence of mental illness but better gun laws, to see why this issue is a red herring used by gun lobbyists. Very similar prevalence of mental illness, but with substantially different methods of helping those who suffer from it. You're not stupid, you already knew that.

[A790]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Very similar prevalence of mental illness, but with substantially different methods of helping those who suffer from it. You're not stupid, you already knew that.
Just because isn't stupid doesn't mean they aren't being stupid.

[01RedDX]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by A790

Just because isn't stupid doesn't mean they aren't being stupid.

Fair enough. The second he claimed mental health issues were nothing but a Red Herring I should have let that be. It's just such a ridiculous statement. I took the bait, my bad.

[01RedDX]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Is one of the signs of a mental health issue the inability to contain numerous thoughts in a single post?

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Although it would be nice for A790 to expound on how exactly I was "being stupid" as he put it. ;)
Frankly, I'm not educated enough on this subject to evaluate whether your position or his is correct. In this instance, I'm implying that you're being stupid because of your decision to avoid a decent conversation in favour of a dramatic one.

Looking at how you conduct yourself across the forum, it's the same picture in every thread: you come in, paint the issue in whatever colour you feel appropriate, and then attack when challenged.

Now, lots of people do that (myself included), and that's a pretty stupid way to behave. Let's call a spade a spade.

You have 0 chance of changing someone's point of view, you have 100% chance of alienating them from you... which means your ability to influence is dramatically reduced. And, if you aren't posting all this to influence the thinking of others, why are you doing it?

That's why you're being stupid. It has very little to do with the content you post, but rather the mechanism that you choose to do so.

What's shocking is that rx7_turbo2 took the bait twice. :drama:

[rx7_turbo2]

***Edit***

Almost took it a 3rd time. Thanks A790 ;)

[A790]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
***Edit***

Almost took it a 3rd time. Thanks A790 ;)
No problem bro ;)

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
If you read the tone of rx7_turbo2's initial responses to me then you would understand why I went off on him and I'm puzzled why you would single me out as the instigator.
I didn't paint you out as the instigator, actually. :)

"Paint the issue in whatever colour you feel appropriate, and then attack when challenged." - isn't that the very definition of a debate?
No, I think that's the definition of an argument. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when that's the precedence.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think it says a lot about a person when, instead of challenging the valid points you've made, they respond with a cheap shot and tuck tail.
Conversely, it is difficult to have a rational conversation with a zealot. :)

Having said that, I appreciate that at least you took the time to post a thoughtful response, as ironic as it was. ;) No hard feelings, I'm PC too brah!
Only way to be, bro. ;)

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

Well, I can find lots of examples where you enter threads screaming your message and post multiple "facts" and "sources". I can also provide a pretty convincing argument that you rarely intend to consider the perspectives of the people you're "debating" with. With that in mind, why would I invest the energy in searching through your post history to highlight posts that you and I both know you've made?

Consider that you knew full well what I meant by "argument" and still felt the need to post your definition. Is that something you find to be constructive?

I also don't need to be critical of Mr. Turbo because, by and large, he can have debates with a willingness to change his viewpoint when challenged. I think most people are like that. Some aren't, and those are the ones that you eventually tune out.

If Mr. Turbo's behavior changes consistently enough that the above statement no longer applies, so too would my stance on whether or not I should be critical of him. Make sense? I wasn't always critical of you, either.

Your behaviour of late has been remarkably similar to our dearly-departed Arash. Is that an association you want to maintain?

I recognize that you get some satisfaction from your smugness ("Also, it's herring", "debate is a synonym for argument"). Do you recognize that being the reason that most people simply choose to move along when you come into the picture?