[QUOTE=sgman91;49232634]I don't know... when's the last time a disgruntled worker brought an IED, assault rifles, and body armor?[/QUOTE]
And 2 fucking gunmen (and possible love interest involved aswell)?
You'd think it would have been a lonewolf act that ended in suicide.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49232613]One is a nigh-essentiality for our lives in our current socio-economic landscape and is the most efficient form of personal transportation. The other only has a stake in killing things and occasional sport and recreation. If you're seriously telling me that "getting that deer onto my dinner table" is the primary intent of a majority firearm owners then I dont know where to begin lol, not to even mention the fact that "both are things that can get people killed" is a dumb argument. Guns are designed with the intent that it will be lethal and efficient at the task of injuring/killing and cars are not.[/QUOTE]
You're right, sport and recreating is a large part of why I own firearms in addition to hunting upstate. I've trained with them and know how to operate them. As it stands I would guess that you do not want me to participate in my hobby. I have nothing else to contribute to this then.
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;49232647]And 2 fucking gunmen (and possible love interest involved aswell)?
You'd think it would have been a lonewolf act that ended in suicide.[/QUOTE]
Yeah this doesn't add up, they shot the place up, jumped in a car and ran off, and when they were caught, they kept running.
It doesn't really fit the bill of a regular mass shooting / terrorist attack to me.
Specially the target, if they were planning on killing as many people as possible, they sure as hell picked a bad place to do it, but they DID have a LOT of weaponry, including pipe bombs.
It's a soft target just as the ones in France were. Could be the perpetrators were just copycats though, and aren't political.
[QUOTE=verynicelady;49232614]Isn't it very unusual for there to be more than one person in a scenario like that? And disgruntled employees rarely wear bullet-proof vests as has been reported, or carry explosives in their cars[/QUOTE]
True. Maybe gang connections? This shooting doesn't feel that politically motivated just yet, though. I haven't heard about many Hispanics committing random mass shootings lately. The explosives are a bit harder to explain.
It's really a weird situation. I'm not sure what to think yet.
I can't help but feel that these "Repeal the Second Amendment" types don't realize they're playing with fire.
Once the 2nd is gone, the road is [B]PAVED[/B] for the 1st and others to fall. Do NOT underestimate the politicians that are in office: Given an inch, they can and WILL take far more than just a mile, as demonstrated by the slippery slope of decaying privacy starting with the PATRIOT Act and the founding of the TSA.
Also, some Dummkopf is going to cite Prohibition being overturned.
Guess what dumbfuck, Prohibition took away people's rights. Getting rid of it gave rights back.
NBC and FOX just identified one of the shooters. Here we go!
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49232633]Well, according to our President, Ft. Hood was workplace violence so this will probably be swept under the rug as workplace violence aswell[/QUOTE]
Are you going to try to claim that all three of these shooters are extremist transgender leftists too
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232582]Are they not both tools? A car gets me from A to B, a rifle will get that deer onto my dinner table. You need to appreciate and respect both as they both are things that can get people killed. A rifle isn't something I need every day to survive, but neither is a car. I could take a bus or walk, but I decided to take the proper courses and learn about the tool and become registered to both drive and to shoot.[/QUOTE]
Im sorry but that is an absolutely insane argument. Both are tools yes, but one is designed for transportation and the other is designed to KILL THINGS.
The police entered the apartments in redlands. A loud bang was reported
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232665]True. Maybe gang connections? This shooting doesn't feel that politically motivated just yet, though. I haven't heard about many Hispanics committing random mass shootings lately. The explosives are a bit harder to explain.[/QUOTE]
Anti-government idiots? It was a social services facility, after all.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49232537]I think that the reason that this connection is made so often is A) it gives people invested in guns and gun culture something else to pin the blame of shootings on and B) it's often a factor in larger than normal shootings, which get more coverage on national media outlets than single death incidents or criminal on criminal incidents.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that Sweden's gun culture is similar to that of the US?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232481]I found a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/"]review article[/url] that says that most gun crime, and indeed violent crime in general, is not linked to any form of mental illness.
You missed my point. My point is that mental health is not as big of an issue when it comes to gun crime in the first place.[/QUOTE]
a few years ago I read an article stating that in one city something like 40% of murders is committed by the 17-24 age range and 75% by people with prior convictions
it's a pretty strong indication that gangs are the problem, at least in that city
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;49232701]now that some names are released i hope people will stop beating around the bush[/QUOTE]
What names?
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;49232689]Do you think that Sweden's gun culture is similar to that of the US?[/QUOTE]
Not sure where this question comes from and I dont really know how to answer it since I dont know much about swedens gun culture.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232649]You're right, sport and recreating is a large part of why I own firearms in addition to hunting upstate. I've trained with them and know how to operate them. As it stands I would guess that you do not want me to participate in my hobby. I have nothing else to contribute to this then.[/QUOTE]
If your hobby gets in the way of human lives, then I do raise objections to it. I haven't raised any points to a large gun buyback program or anything but just because you're well trained and responsible doesn't mean that everyone is, and that's a problem when the subject at hand is the most lethal thing most people can legally own.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;49232706]What names?[/QUOTE]
Sayeed Farook is one I think
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;49231746]The scaling back of availability of firearms combined with rigorous competency and mental health checks for people wanting them probably[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, people keep referencing Switzerland when it comes to gun accessibility, claiming they have lower crime and what-not.
What they don't know (or at least fail to tell you) is that Switzerland's back-ground check is strict to the point that if you have any violence in your criminal record, you get no gun, and even something as minor as a traffic citation can prevent you from getting the gun (depending on what the citation was for). They also require registration and licenses for each fire-arm, though a license can be used to get multiple guns if you get them in one go. If you decide you want that Judge half-way through the process, tough shit, go get another license.
Even funnier is most of the people who do this are very vocal about their dislike of socialism, but Switzerland is socialist. :v:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49232688]Anti-government idiots? It was a social services facility, after all.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 3 crazies like the guy who shot Giffords who got together to stop some grand conspiracy that only exists in their heads.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232555]it should be mandatory that people take the proper safety courses and be licensed in order to own and operate a firearm no different than driving a car.[/QUOTE]
it already is. usage on private property (race tracks, gun ranges) require no licensing while public use (streets, concealed carry) requires licensing (driver's license, ccw permit)
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232555]I do think that owning a gun is an important right in this country regardless of what others may think. Given my proper training and experience with firearms, I don't think that I should be limited in my selection seeing as they are all tools that boil down to the same functionality no different than me being able to go out today and buy a 400hp Corvette vs a 150hp Corolla even if I may not be Robby Gordon.
Having said that, I think that it should be mandatory that people take the proper safety courses and be licensed in order to own and operate a firearm no different than driving a car. I've seen too many idiots with guns to think differently, but I also know that banning AK clones and the thousands of AR derivatives will do nothing but hinder law abiding hobbyists.[/QUOTE]
people drive cars illegally too. there are courses to be licensed, but you can just get it without one.
[QUOTE=butre;49232721]it already is. usage on private property (race tracks, gun ranges) require no licensing while public use (streets, hunting) requires licensing (driver's license, sportsman's license)[/QUOTE]
But in many states any joe shmoe can walk in and out with a firearm as long as they are over 18. I am guessing that some of these criminals in states like NY and CA probably got theirs from another state.
Name isn't confirmed, fox news got it from an "outside source."
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;49232735]Name isn't confirmed, fox news got it from an "outside source."[/QUOTE]
Ah the ol' Fox News Random Muslim Generator
I found it weird that the only place I was able to find a name was the navy seal subreddit
NBC also said it's Sayeed Farook
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232732]But in many states any joe shmoe can walk in and out with a firearm as long as they are over 18. I am guessing that some of these criminals in states like NY and CA probably got theirs from another state.[/QUOTE]
anybody can buy a car too, not sure what you're getting at
[QUOTE=Apache249;49232382]Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.[/QUOTE]
They've done it before numerous times throughout American history. The military has, the FBI has, the police do it on a regular basis today, private contractors have, etc. They didn't have any problems then, it's doubtful they'd have any problems doing it now. Mostly because the majority of Americans aren't radical enough to want to completely overthrow and destroy the government, because that's a fucking stupid idea that requires too much effort and too many sacrifices to be made, and because the government offers them good pay and benefits, food and shelter, opportunities for personal advancement, and just basic all-round life security and stability-- not only life security and stability for themselves, but for their families too.
You people severely underestimate their willingness to put down rebellions lol. They've been doing it literally since we became a proper country, and they're quite good at it. They did it with the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, the Southampton Slave Rebellion in the distant past, the Pinkertons and Pennsylvania State Militia shot 20 people during the Homestead Strike... they've done it here again recently in Ferguson and Baltimore, at the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago... hell, the military shot people at Kent State out of fear in 1970. The police especially have had a long history of putting rioters and would-be rebels down without hesitation. If it only takes arrests to do so, so be it. If they feel a little bit of brutality is needed, they'll crack some skulls and fire off gas to get the crowd to go home, hand out beanbag guns and use rubber bullets. If that doesn't do the trick and people really start testing them, they'll start using lethal force.
If there's good enough personal benefits offered, you can motivate most people to do anything. If you can instill enough fear in them, they'll gladly do it on the belief they're protecting themselves and their interests. The whole "mass desertions will happen" argument is wishful thinking. Siding with the government offers a lot more advantages than does deciding to fight against it and try to overthrow it, and that's all that the majority of people care about. They're smart enough (or at least selfish enough) to understand that ideology (whether it's the Sovereign Citizen doctrines, Libertarianism, etc.) doesn't mean a fucking thing in the real world; food, shelter, money, security... mean everything.
They're certainly smart enough to understand that these outstanding gentlemen...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky49ltgeXRU[/media]
...are not what we need in this country and are not capable of making rational decisions about our government.
Also, do you seriously think the rest of the world would just allow us, the United States-- the world's wealthiest and last-remaining superpower that is basically the backbone of the global economy--, to just shit itself in rebellion? Do you think our allies and economic partners wouldn't intervene and would just allow things to play out however they would? No. They'd want to protect their interests, and they'd undoubtedly use military force to do so. The Europeans would, the Chinese definitely would... who knows, maybe the Russians would throw in their lot as well. It's hard to believe they'd want to just sit out the fight entirely and do nothing. Basically, nobody else in the world wants to see us be turned upside down by a revolution, because that would mean extremely bad things for the global economy and their interests. They'd intervene, and I seriously doubt they'd have a problem using violence to enforce their desires.
[editline]3 December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;49232761]kent state was in no way the military taking over though, the national guard was doing what riot police would be used for today and the protests were very violent, it did come out later on that at least some of those violent anti-vietnam protests were actually started by undercover cops trying to smear the hippies as anarchists or communists[/QUOTE]
Point is, they went ahead and did it anyway. They shot and killed people, and they wounded others. They did what they did, and they didn't hesitate to do so.
Also, yeah, undercover agents do that regularly. And sometimes, it's a good thing-- like when they do it with neo-Nazi groups, these batshit insane militias, etc. But regardless of why and who they do it to, the fact is they used a very basic tactic (infiltration) to smear these groups, make them appear a certain way, and this contributed to the National Guard shooting a bunch of people.
They would do this in the future if rebel groups tried popping up in this country. It wouldn't matter if the rebels had a good point and were fighting for a good cause, it wouldn't matter if they were retarded like the Oath Keepers and those fuckwads that showed up at the Bundy Ranch Standoff; they could and would be infiltrated, they'd be made to appear a certain way that would make the American people hostile to them, and that would be the end of the matter. Again, most people don't hate our government enough to want to rebel against them, and this is how things are going to be for the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49232714]The funny thing is, people keep referencing Switzerland when it comes to gun accessibility, claiming they have lower crime and what-not.
What they don't know (or at least fail to tell you) is that Switzerland's back-ground check is strict to the point that if you have any violence in your criminal record, you get no gun, and even something as minor as a traffic citation can prevent you from getting the gun. They also require registration and licenses for each fire-arm, though a license can be used to get multiple guns if you get them in one go. If you decide you want that Judge half-way through the process, tough shit, go get another license.
Even funnier is most of the people who do this are very vocal about their dislike of socialism, but Switzerland is socialist. :v:[/QUOTE]
How dare you come into this thread and make sense and post facts without manipulating them to suit a ridiculous agenda.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49232737]Ah the ol' Fox News Random Muslim Generator
I found it weird that the only place I was able to find a name was the navy seal subreddit[/QUOTE]
The police reported the name over the scanner ~2-3 hours ago :goodjob:
[QUOTE=Anderan;49232540]It's not like it hasn't happened in relatively recent history.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings[/url]
Granted it's not like they rolled up and started firing for no apparent reason but depending on the situation tensions can flare and shit goes downhill very quickly. Servicemen/women are human beings like everyone else and will fire if they feel the need to, fellow citizens or not.[/QUOTE]
kent state was in no way the military taking over though, the national guard was doing what riot police would be used for today and the protests were very violent, it did come out later on that at least some of those violent anti-vietnam protests were actually started by undercover cops trying to smear the hippies as anarchists or communists
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49232737]Ah the ol' Fox News Random Muslim Generator
I found it weird that the only place I was able to find a name was the navy seal subreddit[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Laferio;49232738]NBC also said it's Sayeed Farook[/QUOTE]
did you just do the same thing you accused fox news of lmao
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
