San Bernardino Shooting

[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...002496?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" 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!