Now It's San Bernardino

[Laila619]

Then we need to start making it an even playing field. If gun control won't work and bad people will always have guns, then start having armed guards everywhere. Schools, places of employments, banks, retail stores, etc. Or start having everyone conceal carry. Is that what it's come down to? Sad.

 

[chrono]

Then we need to start making it an even playing field. If gun control won't work and bad people will always have guns, then start having armed guards everywhere. Schools, places of employments, banks, retail stores, etc. Or start having everyone conceal carry. Is that what it's come down to? Sad.

This is already happening. And with it comes the increase in charges of "using excessive force" when someone is shot/killed, with the excuse that their life was in danger. It is very sad but this vicious cycle will never end and it will only get worse.

 

[momhappy]

More pistols are used in shootings than any other firearms, so banning certain types of firearms is not likely to solver the problem wither.

It may not solve it but it will lessen the amount of carnage if the killer is forced to use the smaller / less damaging causing pistol.

and I agree with you, but my point was that it was yet again, probably not addressing the big picture when tackling the issue of gun violence.
Like many of you, I wish that steps towards sensible gun control could be taken (as opposed to just talk), but this conversation just keeps going around and around. For me, the biggest pitfall in this debate is having unrealistic goals - guns are here to stay, so why not work towards goals that help minimize the damage since we can not possibly make it disappear entirely.

 

[AGBF]

Then we need to start making it an even playing field. If gun control won't work and bad people will always have guns, then start having armed guards everywhere. Schools, places of employments, banks, retail stores, etc. Or start having everyone conceal carry. Is that what it's come down to? Sad.

Or having everyone open carry.

I do not believe that this would be new. I believe that this would harken back to the Wild West. In other words, we have already done this in our history. Do we wish to repeat it? Maybe we should take a look, a close look, at how it worked out. When we did it back then it was for specific cultural reasons that do not exist in most, or perhaps any, parts of the United States today.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Matata]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/?tid=sm_fb

 

[mom2dolls]

I think it is insane that someone can say ho hum to a tragedy where innocent people are murdered. How does that even make sense?
These people came to this place for a holiday luncheon.

What if this was your family member? Would you dismiss them?
This is part of the problem. People become desensitized to the horror of mass murder.

NRA would have zero power without money. No politician is going to reject the massive amount of money they hand out to protect themselves and their interests. Yet, every time this happens the same talking points are repeated. How about, talk less and actually do something for a change!

 

[kenny]

^Yes. Paris had strict gun control laws (so strict that even some law enforcement don't carry firearms).

If people really want to tackle the issue of gun violence, then they're going to have to dig deeper than a simple dialogue about gun control. I'm not opposed to sensible gun control, but it certainly won't solve the problem. The main problem is keeping the guns out of the hands of those who's sole purpose is to hurt & kill and unfortunately, the bad guys will always find a way to do that (with or without guns).

But unlike the gun-loving USA, France has not had more than 1 mass shooting per day this year.
Restricting access to guns lowers gun violence.

 

[kenny]

The US protects the freedom to practice or not practice a religion, so that's never going to happen. In any case, one bad Muslim or one bad Christian doesn't mean the other Muslims or Christians are also bad. One bad apple doesn't mean all the apples in the basket are also rotten.

But the right's top candidate, Trump, wants to start a registry of Muslims.

Imagine if he wanted to start a registry of Christians because there are a couple bad Christians too.
Then there have been bad women, bad men ...
Clearly the answer is to put all 318 million Americans behind barbed wire in interment camps.

 

[packrat]

But there needs to be a way to restrict it to EVERYONE, not just me. $15 thousand a MONTH for selling illegal firearms in this country, to people who more than likely COULD NOT GET them otherwise, b/c of restrictions already in place, isn't going to take care of the problem, and it's part of the problem that is completely glossed over. When and if and until THAT man, and the hundreds/thousands EXACTLY LIKE him, are stopped, and it's made not worth their while, it will never stop. We don't talk about the complete and utter HATE in this country for our fellow man, and the laws, the complete and utter DISRESPECT in this country for our fellow man and the laws. We just automatically boil it down to oh it's the guns. No. It's not. It's people. People with hatred in their hearts and a lack of compassion and empathy and respect and morals and ethics. We don't expect that out of people anymore. And it's never going to end when we're pointing fingers at everyone else and not addressing the real issues.

 

[Rhea]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/?tid=sm_fb

This. I didn't hear about it until hours after and even then it was quickly bumped from our headline news. It's sad, but I can't change it

" give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,
The courage to change what can be changed,
and the wisdom to know the one from the other"

This falls into the 1st. I can't change it so I must accept it. I'm glad that the news is accepting it by limiting, to some extent, how much they report on it. Why bang our heads any longer?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Lots of variables going on. You have a mental illness problem, and actually enforcing or tightening gun license requirements for those disagnosed would go a long way in stopping those killings (better treatment would be a novel idea as well). However, many times these people are undiagnosed until they do something bad. As far as enforcing current license checks, if they had waited for info to come through on Dylan Roof, he would not have gotten his gun license which certainly might have changed things. Then you have a call for world terrorism by certain groups. They are recruiting and radicalizing people in many countries including the US. I am betting this is what happened in San Bernadino. If it had just been the male, we could say, oh, it's just a disgruntled worker. But this was a man who was deeply religious, according to his family, went to Saudi Arabia to meet and marry his wife in the last two years, returns here, and with a 6 month old baby, the two of them go on a mass killing rampage??? Umm, that is going to be terrorism. And I do not know how we are going to stop that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

It's also noted that - like Paris (another gun-free zone) - the shooters were of a particular religious following. Where is the outrage and calls for banning those in the U.S.?

I am not going to get into another battle of beliefs over being pro vs anti-gun. People who are anti-gun will always blame the gun vs addressing the source of hate in the person pulling the trigger. I prefer to blame the source of the murder's hatred.

 

[JaneSmith]

Allowing men with histories of domestic abuse to obtain guns, or not performing thorough background checks that could reveal violent histories, exposes women to be disproportionately victimized by gun violence. A study published in 2013 by the University of Washington revealed that a strong majority of mass shootings in America were carried out by white males and found a "correlation between feelings of entitlement among white males and homicidal revenge against a specific demographic." ...
Obviously, women aren't the only people affected by gun violence, nor are they the only group who would benefit from stronger gun control laws. Domestic violence appears to be more of a strong risk factor of loose gun control than a direct consequence of it. However, there is no denying that gunmen involved in mass shootings are frequently white males: between 1982 and 2012, all but one mass shooter were male, and in 44 of 62 case, the shooter was a white male. ...
Most disturbing of all, a strong majority of guns involved in such acts of violence are obtained entirely legally. ...
Tendencies toward violence are subtly rooted in how men are brought up by society, which arguably glorifies aggression in males. And as multiple studies reveal, a sense of born entitlement develops naturally in boys, who are more likely to feel unjustly wronged and respond with violence than females who encounter rejection and hardship. The simple fact is that an ingrained sense of male entitlement isn't going anywhere, but gun control is a critical feminist issue as it could check the tragic consequences of male entitlement turned violent.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/115068-why-gun-control-is-a-feminist-issue-because-mass-shootings-disproportionately-target-women


The three major versions of monotheism are highly patriarchal, and the fundamentalist versions are deeply misogynistic and teach an extreme version of male entitlement. This entitlement and sense of righteous power from being a member of a group that sees itself as supported by the creator of the universe, the only ones following this being's true word, are a most volitile combination.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It's also noted that - like Paris (another gun-free zone) - the shooters were of a particular religious following. Where is the outrage and calls for banning those in the U.S.?

I am not going to get into another battle of beliefs over being pro vs anti-gun. People who are anti-gun will always blame the gun vs addressing the source of hate in the person pulling the trigger. I prefer to blame the source of the murder's hatred.

She's right. I read in the last few months about a killing of multiple people in Australia, I think, with a knife. There was a workplace killing here as well where the guy beheaded someone with a knife. Hate kills. It doesn't have to take a gun. People like terrorists will have access to guns illegally even if we banned all guns. You'd better believe that I want law abiding people to be able to have guns in this day and age of all times.

 

[chrono]

Yes, both are weapons but one kills more with less effort and is quicker. In one minute, how many people can a deranged person kill using a knife compared to how many people can a deranged person kill using a semi-automatic or even fully automatic weapon?

 

[packrat]

Let it be known that I've seen a lot of people arguing on FB about the number of R's in San Bernardino, so I clicked over here to see how Deb had spelled it b/c I knew she would spell it properly.

 

[JaneSmith]

Another argument that you sometimes hear is that these shootings would happen less frequently if even more people had guns, thus enabling them to defend themselves from the shooting.
But, again, the data shows this is simply not true. High gun ownership rates do not reduce gun deaths. And multiple simulations have demonstrated, that most people if placed in an active shooter situation while armed, will not be able to stop the situation, and in fact may do little more than get themselves killed in the process.
This video shows one such simulation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, both are weapons but one kills more with less effort and is quicker. In one minute, how many people can a deranged person kill using a knife compared to how many people can a deranged person kill using a semi-automatic or even fully automatic weapon?

Not arguing that. Just saying, the stop the deranged person from getting a gun legally, but it won't absolutely stop them from killing.

 

[JaneSmith]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/?tid=sm_fb

It really does seem, from the outside, to be a daily occurrence with an obvious solution.

 

[JaneSmith]

Guns are big business in the US.

#1 United States
The United-States of America remains the largest exporter of conventional weapons in the world, according to the latest study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The U.S account for 30% of global arms sales, or about $7 billion per year, for the period 2005-2009, SIPRI statement says. From 2005 to 2009, the U.S. sold one-third of its arm exports to South Korea (15%), Israel (13%) and the United Arab Emirates (11%). Pictured above, a U.S. Air Force C-17A Globemaster III. jr/USAF/Cary Humphries UPI

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3105/

 

[kenny]

Let it be known that I've seen a lot of people arguing on FB about the number of R's in San Bernardino, so I clicked over here to see how Deb had spelled it b/c I knew she would spell it properly.

What is an R?

 

[chrono]

Let it be known that I've seen a lot of people arguing on FB about the number of R's in San Bernardino, so I clicked over here to see how Deb had spelled it b/c I knew she would spell it properly.

What is an R?

She is referring to how many alphabet "r" there are in the spelling of the town's name. Unless you are using dry humour of some sort that just flew over my head...

 

[kenny]

Let it be known that I've seen a lot of people arguing on FB about the number of R's in San Bernardino, so I clicked over here to see how Deb had spelled it b/c I knew she would spell it properly.

What is an R?

She is referring to how many alphabet "r" there are in the spelling of the town's name. Unless you are using dry humour of some sort that just flew over my head...

Ah, thanks Chrono.
I was thinking R was the first letter of some forbidden word.

Now it's obvious.

 

[purplesparklies]

[quote="kenny|

Oh, so it is DF reasoning, not an FBI announcement you heard.
Okay.

Like I said, you may be right and I'll wait for the authorities.
I'm in no hurry.

Just common senses. The pipe bombs were made well ahead of time and ready to be use when they decide to carry out this terrorist act.[/quote]

Looks like DF assumes correctly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

 

[kenny]

[quote="kenny]

Oh, so it is DF reasoning, not an FBI announcement you heard.
Okay.

Like I said, you may be right and I'll wait for the authorities.
I'm in no hurry.

Just common senses. The pipe bombs were made well ahead of time and ready to be use when they decide to carry out this terrorist act.

Looks like DF assumes correctly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

... and I was correct too, when I basically said 'time will tell'.
... not that either of us should get some double-D boobie prize.
I mean, big whoop who's 'right'!

It is interesting though how some type of folks need to be quick to place something into a jar.
Apparently uncertainty makes some uncomfortable.
I'm more okay-ish with with just not knowing things when they are not knowable.
In this case my standard for knowing is the authorities announcing that their investigation has established the motive.

Even then that's contingent on trusting your government.
I just watched an amazing award-winning documentary film called, "A Thin Blue Line" about an innocent man framed and convicted by our justice system of the murder of a Dallas TX cop.
So if I would have said I 'know' he was guilty because the authorities say so I would have been wrong.

 

[JaneSmith]

"Astonishingly, it’s perfectly legal even for people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns in the United States. More than 2,000 terrorism suspects did indeed purchase guns in the United States between 2004 and 2014, according to the Government Accountability Office and The Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Democrats have repeatedly proposed closing that loophole, but the National Rifle Association and its Republican allies have blocked those efforts, so it’s still legal."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opinion/on-guns-were-not-even-trying.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/YyodrlwJZX


And then there's this gem:

http://m.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/12/new-york-post-san-bernardino-cover-muslim

The headlines scream about Muslim terrorists but never call out a Christian and/or misogynist terrorist.

Makes it easy for Trump et al to call for brown people internment camps.

 

[purplesparklies]

[

... and I was correct too, when I basically said 'time will tell'.
... not that either of us should get some double-D boobie prize.
I mean, big whoop who's 'right'!

It is interesting though how some type of folks need to be quick to place something into a jar.
Apparently uncertainty makes some uncomfortable.
I'm more okay-ish with with just not knowing things when they are not knowable.
In this case my standard for knowing is the authorities announcing that their investigation has established the motive.

Even then that's contingent on trusting your government.
I just watched an amazing award-winning documentary film called, "A Thin Blue Line" about an innocent man framed and convicted by our justice system of the murder of a Dallas TX cop.
So if I would have said I 'know' he was guilty because the authorities say so I would have been wrong.

No argument from me. I am one who chooses to wait rather than jump to conclusions, as well. Simply sharing an article I just read which contains information I had not seen previously.

 

[yssie]

I think the primary problem is the cadre of Americans suffering from But We're Special syndrome.

Strict gun control works. It works in other countries. It works in other countries that neighbour warzones. It works in other countries that neighbour developing nations.
But it won't work for us, of course, because We're Special.
Our founding fathers said two hundred years ago that people should have the inalienable right to arm themselves... to protect themselves from government tyranny. Thing is... things change over a couple of centuries. Needs change. Shouldn't rights change accordingly?
But... We're Special, darnit!!!

And Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People... so the obvious solution is to address the problem people.
The problem people could be... well. Anyone (excluding law enforcement) with a gun.
So... yeah, I'll say it: take away their guns. ALL their guns. And give them back to the very few who can give a darn good reason for owning one (hunting, Jordy's wildlife are two obvious examples).
It won't solve all our problems. But I'll bet... the lives of my loved ones... that it'll solve a heck of a lot of problems.
I don't have anything more precious than that to bet.

Not that my opinion matters - I'm not one of the Special ones

The rest of the world doesn't think much of our But We're Special syndrome - but of course they're all wrong, and they can't possibly understand, they don't live here and they just don't see how Special we are...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/the-chilling-way-foreign-media-talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/?tid=sm_fb

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I just want everyone to understand that during the second world war German immigrants were registered somewhere. All German immigrants were called down to some government office and had to swear a loyalty oath to the US government. This included US German citizens.

My cousin, when he finished college, went into the service, as the draft was in force. His German background prevented him from serving in Germany, although he spoke German fluently, and it was already the 1950's. He was born here.

The Japanese were not the only ones subjected to rigorous scrutiny, the Gov. kept their eyes on Germans as well. Of course they weren't in camps. In the 50's the word loyalty came up a lot. So calling for certain groups to be singled out has happened throughout history. We have to decide what is reasonable to do to protect ourselves.

The facts do lean toward anger and terrorism in this case. The woman is from Pakistan, he is from Saudi Arabia and they had bombs (!@) in their apartment. No question in my mind that terrorism played a part in this. I think the man got angry, but was preparing for an attack of some sort.

The world is different now and until they do something about the criminals and now terrorists, decent folks can keep their guns.
I disagree with Kenny, and do think there are areas that are war zones. Chicago(parts ) is one. The police are the most fearful, and they lose control of themselves, and shoot innocents. If the police are so fearful, perhaps we should be too. Don't look at what people say, look what they do.

Annette

 

[kenny]

I disagree with Kenny, and do think there are areas that are war zones. Chicago(parts ) is one. ...

Careful.
I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but please don't mischaracterize what I wrote.

Here I have quoted the exchange you must be referring to ...

Americans are living in a war zone, every day.

Exaggeration.
Just a couple of us.
US population is over 318 million.

Big whoop.

I'm sympathetic for the victim's families ... but I refuse to overreact.

I'm not afraid.
I have no desire to buy a gun.
Life goes on as usual.

Lalia619 wrote, "Americans", but you wrote "areas".
There is a huge difference between all of America and areas of America, and this difference is central to my point.

My point: All Americans should not become fearful.
2 or 3 more of these attacks and our fear and hysteria will elect President Trump to execute everyone not in the master race!

The risk is very very tiny that any of us will die in a mass shooting, whether it's a disgruntled worker or terrorist or some other motivation.
The risk of being killed in a car accident is very very huge ... yet we are still in love with our cars AND the vast majority of us speed, tailgate and MANY text while driving.

Perspective, people.

Also, as with many things there's ... Follow the money!
The media, the government, and the military industrial complex get rich by fanning our deepest and most powerful emotion, fear.