Mass shooting in San Bernandino

[Fez]

Kalbear,

Trump don't need no stinking Constitution!!! 

We're gonna have a new constitution, and its gonna be beautiful. Real classy piece of work. You'll see.

[cdawnb]

I'm wondering if this isn't some weird mash up of possible radicalization with the choice of the target being a more traditional work place shooting spree.

It would account for the somewhat strange circumstances surrounding the whole thing.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We're gonna have a new constitution, and its gonna be beautiful. Real classy piece of work. You'll see.

Fez,

10 bucks says he goes there if, God forbid, he's elected.

[DanteGabriel]

Shooter had an abusive and violent father:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-shooter-endured-turbulent-home-life-according-to-court-documents-20151203-story.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

We're gonna have a new constitution, and its gonna be beautiful. Real classy piece of work. You'll see.

Can we make the Mexicans pay for it? 

[JonSnow4President]

 

So long as they don't go the route that most Trump supporters want...

What is this fictional assault weapons ban?  One of the biggest hang ups a lot of reasonable gun owners have is that the message coming out of the gun control groups is opposed to scary sounding things that aren't actually real.  

It'd be like instantly losing all respect for someone trying to ban the chemical dihydrogen monoxide from our water supply.  It sounds scary unless you know a little bit about the subject and realize it's just a BS platform.

[Fez]

Can we make the Mexicans pay for it? 

Absolutely. See, its gonna be written in solid gold letters set on to a real classy looking steel and glass pyramid we're gonna put on the national mall, so those jackasses in congress get a good look at it every day. That ain't going be cheap, and with how much them Mexicans have been costing this country, its only fair that they start paying us back.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

What is this fictional assault weapons ban?  One of the biggest hang ups a lot of reasonable gun owners have is that the message coming out of the gun control groups is opposed to scary sounding things that aren't actually real.  

It'd be like instantly losing all respect for someone trying to ban the chemical dihydrogen monoxide from our water supply.  It sounds scary unless you know a little bit about the subject and realize it's just a BS platform.

There was an actual, non-fictional, Federal Assault Weapons Ban in law for 10 years in this country, which defined the features of "semiautomatic assault weapons," (or just "assault weapons" in shorthand) to be covered under the ban.

I understand disputing the reality of assault weapons as a category is one of the favored smokescreens of the pro-gun crowd, but a definition that was once law is as robust as you're going to get on most topics.

[Ser Creighton]

 

depends on the weapons and rate of fire, but anywhere from 100 to 600 rounds per minute on auto, but more likely they had that many in case of a prolonged seize/shootout with police

Yeah well unless you have ton of high capacity mags, or a belt fed weapon the ammunition could be used as a source for powder as well. Reminds me of Boston, family members working together, increased likelihood of radicalization, IED's with remote triggers, questionable travel locations for the husband. Possible connections to international terrorists, improvised bomb lab, lots of advanced prep, some personal motivation.

Former roommate who purchased the rifles, is in deep shit. It is a bit difficult to explain that as a normal request for a friend, hey what's up could you pick me up a couple assault rifles, thanks? While the rifles may have been purchased legally their is no way they were in California legally. 

It also appears the couple had other plans after this, weather they were going to Alamo or planned on other attacks is a mystery.

So, only break open, one shot then reload firearms?  Semi-automatic is nothing.  I can work my pump action shotgun materially as fast as my dad can accurately shoot his semi-auto shotgun.  I'm not as well practiced with my bolt-action rifle, but you can still shoot them fairly fast with practice.

I wouldn't be opposed to a realistically limited mag size for rifles and pistols above a certain caliber (please don't make me have a 5 round max on a .22 for example), or more stringent background checks, shutting down gun show loopholes, etc.  Hell, I can even get behind some mandatory training, or even (low cost) licensing similar to a driver's license.  

But pretending semi-auto is a big bad boogieman is weird.

Well you may be really great with your scatter gun, but I promise you I will put more rounds on target with an AR-15 with high capacity mags, you need to reload after 6 shots. Dude come on with the closing of loopholes, you don't want loopholes, it only suggests you are trying to get around the law. You don't think there is a criminal element at gun shows? You do agree something needs to be done right?

Yes their is the problem that the more difficult you make it to get a firearm legally, the easier it will become to get one illegally. It's like drugs you take it away legally and people will find a way to get it illegally, especially people who want to commit acts of terror, but it still makes it more difficult. Where I work you have thousands of illegal guns and people getting killed all the time. This may be a big story but I work in a place where 70+ people can get shot on a weekend and it makes the news for 5 minutes, most of that is an ongoing gang war over drugs but they shoot whoever gets in the way, or to send a message like killing a 9 year old in an alley. 

Now it's not political for me, I don't care what party anyone likes, I am all for the stop fucking up and being stupid party. Now while you may like your gun shows, and while these people may have gotten some of their guns in a legal manner. The guns I deal with are generally illegal weapons, and some of that comes from gun shows and those loopholes you don't want closed. If you can by a gun legally you don't need a gun off the grid. You probably pay bills, own a car, have a license, you are probably not off the grid, why would you need a gun that is. Sure maybe you get a good deal on the piece but that does not mean you shouldn't register it. Tell what is the point of having a weapon off the grid? Would you be planning on doing something good with it? Or is it one of those well I need a weapon in case I need to take on the government when it becomes a fascist regime or some Red Dawn scenario, because really those are kind of thin excuses. I don't support paranoia, I tend to see it as a problem. Generally I don't think people who are paranoid should have firearms, they do stupid shit with them. 

   

[JonSnow4President]

There was an actual, non-fictional, Federal Assault Weapons Ban in law for 10 years in this country, which defined the features of "semiautomatic assault weapons," (or just "assault weapons" in shorthand) to be covered under the ban.

I understand disputing the reality of assault weapons as a category is one of the favored smokescreens of the pro-gun crowd, but a definition that was once law is as robust as you're going to get on most topics.

Just looked up that definition.  Had never seen it proposed as anything other than an assault weapon, with many of the guns being proposed (AR-15, etc.) often not falling into that definition (I was 3 when the law passed).  

I have no problem with specific legislation on something like this.  While I think some of the features in the definition list are probably there just to include specific guns and don't feature anything remotely lethal, it's not a bad concept.

 

[JonSnow4President]

Well you may be really great with your scatter gun, but I promise you I will put more rounds on target with an AR-15 with high capacity mags, you need to reload after 6 shots. Dude come on with the closing of loopholes, you don't want loopholes, it only suggests you are trying to get around the law. You don't think there is a criminal element at gun shows? You do agree something needs to be done right?

Yes their is the problem that the more difficult you make it to get a firearm legally, the easier it will become to get one illegally. It's like drugs you take it away legally and people will find a way to get it illegally, especially people who want to commit acts of terror, but it still makes it more difficult. Where I work you have thousands of illegal guns and people getting killed all the time. This may be a big story but I work in a place where 70+ people can get shot on a weekend and it makes the news for 5 minutes, most of that is an ongoing gang war over drugs but they shoot whoever gets in the way, or to send a message like killing a 9 year old in an alley. 

Now it's not political for me, I don't care what party anyone likes, I am all for the stop fucking up and being stupid party. Now while you may like your gun shows, and while these people may have gotten some of their guns in a legal manner. The guns I deal with are generally illegal weapons, and some of that comes from gun shows and those loopholes you don't want closed. If you can by a gun legally you don't need a gun off the grid. You probably pay bills, own a car, have a license, you are probably not off the grid, why would you need a gun that is. Sure maybe you get a good deal on the piece but that does not mean you shouldn't register it. Tell what is the point of having a weapon off the grid? Would you be planning on doing something good with it? Or is it one of those well I need a weapon in case I need to take on the government when it becomes a fascist regime or some Red Dawn scenario, because really those are kind of thin excuses. I don't support paranoia, I tend to see it as a problem. Generally I don't think people who are paranoid should have firearms, they do stupid shit with them. 

   

Well, duh.  I'm making a comparison between actions, not between guns.  I think banning semi-auto is an uninformed, idiotic idea.  I'm all for banning high capacity (as long as that is set reasonably) magazines.

You're right, I don't want loopholes.  I'd want them at bare minimum to be required keep a record of who they sold to.  Background checks are a plus.  

I also wouldn't have a problem if I was required to say "Hey government, these 2 shotguns and this deer rifle are mine now, not my father/uncles."  I know I won't ever do anything illegal with them, and I'll report them if they're stolen, so no skin off my back.  

I'm against stupid, reactionary policies that get through based on the appearance of trying to do something rather than informed policies designed to specifically apply to the problem areas of society.  Hey, let's ban AR-15's is not something I'm behind.  Let's ban 11+ round rifle mags, any semi-auto modified to shoot full auto, and anything capable of being fitted with a suppressor/grenade launcher, I can get behind.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I have no problem with specific legislation on something like this.  While I think some of the features in the definition list are probably there just to include specific guns and don't feature anything remotely lethal, it's not a bad concept.

 

What firearm exists that you could describe as being "not remotely lethal?" That's kind of what they do universally.

[aceluby]

What firearm exists that you could describe as being "not remotely lethal?" That's kind of what they do universally.

He's talking about 'features', which really begs the question as to why those 'features' are necessary for military grade automatic weapons in the first place if they don't improve lethality of the weapon and only how many times you have to pull the trigger contributes to it's lethality.

[JonSnow4President]

What firearm exists that you could describe as being "not remotely lethal?" That's kind of what they do universally.

Features.  Pistol grip for a rifle/shotgun, weight for a pistol for example.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

[Bonesy]

The pistol grip ban never made any fucking sense.

"But it makes it easier to conceal!"

"But actual, you know, PISTOLS are ok?"

GTFO with that nonsense.

[kairparavel]

Why is the woman leaving a baby worth mentioning, repeatedly? I mean dude was a father. He too left a baby behind. But..but..motherhood!

All that happy horseshit clearly has no bearing when you decide to shoot up a room full of unsuspecting people. Doesn't really fall under 'maternal', eh?

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Why is the mother leaving a baby worth mentioning, repeatedly? I mean dude was a father. He too left a baby behind. But..but..motherhood!

All that happy horseshit clearly has no bearing when you decide to shoot up a room full of unsuspecting people. Doesn't really fall under 'maternal', eh?

 

I was just relieved to find out that the kid was okay. I read some blurb about the office throwing sort of baby shower for Farook, and that was the only mention of a kid.

[Swordfish]

The right to bear arms is one freedom I personally could do without, at least most of the time. That particular freedom is quite literally killing us all.

 

No.  it is not 'quite literally killing us all'.

Which makes the next statement you made hilarious, in an unintentional way:

 

People make the weirdest judgments about risk. They think their kids are going to be abducted by strangers, when it is about 30 times more likely those kids will die in a car accident. In fact, I think the top causes of child deaths are car accidents, drowning, suicide and gun accidents. To bring this back on topic, the crimes we're all so afraid of are really unlikely, and the ratio of guns to citizens reflects that inability to properly assess risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

Why is the woman leaving a baby worth mentioning, repeatedly? I mean dude was a father. He too left a baby behind. But..but..motherhood!

Because in general US women are believed to have stronger feelings towards children than men. It's not a particular story to hear a man abandoning their child in the US. It is a much bigger story to hear a woman doing the same. I'm not saying that it has to be that way or it must be that way, but that is the way it is perceived to be in the US, and reporting on it makes perfect sense. It's surprising to US morals. Just like one of the shooters being a woman is surprising to US morals, despite a woman being one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attack.