[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49232832]
the christmas party is not why they attacked, if it were they would have attacked on the day it actually happened[/QUOTE]
I understand that, I feel that what the other poster was trying to say, was that the shooters shot up a place that helps people with disabilities. Like how low do you have to be to plan a shooting for a place that helps people?
How much of a sick bastard do you need to be to plan an attack a place like this? People in wheelchairs or people with mental disabilities are there.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49232875]I think pointless speculation is more harmful than talking about gun legislation right after a shooting, to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. We know that guns were involved with absolute certainty. We don't know who was involved or what their motivations were.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49232875]I think pointless speculation is more harmful than talking about gun legislation right after a shooting, to be honest.[/QUOTE]
It really, really doesn't matter. There's no need to take an ethical stance on the potential harm done by people talking about the news on a forum.
A lot of the friction I'm seeing against gun ownership seems to come from the position that people cannot be trusted with firearms and that the government's prerogative should be to protect the people in situations like this through various government institutions such as law enforcement. Conversely, the other side seems to think that the government cannot be trusted to effectively defend the lives of its citizens when shootings like these happen due to incompetence and unpunctuality of these institutions.
As with all rights, gun ownership has consequences and tradeoffs. The right to free speech comes with it the consequences that people can say mean things, offend people, hurt peoples' feelings, and engage in behavior that is defined by many as "bullying"; however, free speech also allows people to debate freely without fear of reprimand on even the most hot-button issues. If we did not have free speech, for example, we could not be having this debate over gun control right now. It allows criticism of policy that can lead to more effective functioning of the government or better results for the people. It also allows people to express who they truly believe they are. The second amendment brings with it the consequences that bad people can sometimes attain firearms and commit killings with them due to the prevalence of firearms in circulation regardless of legislation against criminal gun ownership, and also that violence that occurs is sometimes more intense than it would have otherwise been without firearms. On the other hand, gun ownership also has positive qualities. People, when law permits them, are allowed to own firearms so that they can defend their lives when they are threatened. It also gives people the tools they need to fight in any kind of insurrection if they feel that they absolutely need to. Additionally, it also gives many people access to alternative means of feeding their families, and it also allows for many kinds of hobbies such as shooting sports and hunting.
It's almost impossible to form a consensus on this issue because the cost-benefit analysis of firearms ownership is inherently skewed by the concepts that are important to left and right wing political ideologies. People on the left tend to believe that the government should be able to competently provide for peoples' safety in any kind of scenario where they are threatened. They also do not see the consequences of innocent people dying to bad guys with guns as a price worth footing for allowing firearms to be owned. The right tends to believe that it is ideal that people have the ability and tools to be capable of defending themselves because the government cannot be trusted to do that for them whether that is due to incompetence, a fear of tyranny, or simple logistical issues. People on the right tend to fear that they will not have a gun when they need it, and also that the police may not arrive in time to assist them. They see gun rights as a method of mitigating the violence caused by other people with firearms. Both of these positions stem from the ideas that both left and right wing ideologies hold as the best way to govern people. The left believes in strong government that cares for every need of its citizens, and the right believes in limited government and the power of the individual to take care of his or herself.
It is damn near impossible to reconcile these two positions because there is very little room for any sort of middle ground. Gun owners have already conceded ground in their rights by allowing automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, suppressors, and some other kinds of firearms to be regulated under the National Firearms Act. Gun owners have allowed for people to be subject to background checks, and waiting periods have been introduced in some states. Government has indeed attempted to find a middle ground between full unlimited gun ownership and a complete ban and confiscation, but it is clear that these attempts have done little to prevent any kinds of mass shootings. An example that would be more relevant to current events would be that California has already tried to restrict many types of firearms, specifically rifles, that the state deems to be dangerous. Everything from banning firearms by name to restricting magazine capacity and various superficial ergonomic features. There is little that can be done short of total banning and confiscation that would cause any sort of noticeable impact on violent gun crime in terms of legislation that deals directly with restricting firearms. Considering that such policy would directly violate the second amendment, it would be extremely difficult to pass any legislation such as that without a two thirds majority in both houses to repeal the second amendment which, according to the current political climate, would be impossible. Even in the event that firearms were banned and confiscated, it is entirely possible that illegal firearms trafficking in the US could rise. It is a similar situation to prohibition where Americans did not drink less than they used to, they just circumvented law to do so.
The institutions that we trust to protect us, the national guard and the police, cannot be at the scene of any shooting as soon as it happens. It can take minutes or hours for police to arrive, and by that point, the shooter will have likely killed many people. In a nation as vast as the United States the government cannot feasibly be everywhere to protect everyone at all times, and there needs to be some kind of ability for people to protect themselves when the government cannot. When it is clear that restrictive legislation does little to prevent such horrific shootings such as this, we must look for solutions in other ways. Maybe being more permissive for legal gun owners to carry in public places is an answer, or maybe not. Whatever solution is proposed, it must be based clearly in empirical evidence and not on baseless assumptions or damaged feelings.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49232848]You're right. He probably got into an argument with his Co workers, went home, dressed up in 'tactical' gear, grabbed his assault rifle, made a few pipe bombs, planned an escape strategy, and convinced his buddy and girlfriend to join him in shooting up the place. Most likely scenario here.[/QUOTE]
Or they've been planning it for a while and this argument is what made him snap.
Seems a lot more likely than a guy shows up to work, gets into a heated argument, leaves, and then, completely unrelated, a short time later, ISIS shows up and starts attacking a really poorly chosen target and does an uncharacteristically small amount of damage.
[QUOTE=Aznsniper911;49232879]I understand that, I feel that what the other poster was trying to say, was that the shooters shot up a place that helps people with disabilities. Like how low do you have to be to plan a shooting for a place that helps people?
How much of a sick bastard do you need to be to plan an attack a place like this? People in wheelchairs or people with mental disabilities are there.[/QUOTE]
The victim's names haven't been released yet but from what the police have mentioned it seems like this was targeted at the facility's staff. It definitely sounds like it was a planned attack - someone knew there was going to be a staff party and exactly where it would be.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232890]Or they've been planning it for a while and this argument is what made him snap.
Seems a lot more likely than a guy shows up to work, gets into a heated argument, leaves, and then, completely unrelated, a short time later, ISIS shows up and starts attacking a really poorly chosen target and does an uncharacteristically small amount of damage.[/QUOTE]
Right, I agree that it was most likely planned by the guy. From your original post it seemed to me you were insinuating that he just had a bad day at work and decided to shoot everyone out of the blue.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;49232843]Why wouldn't you wear it if you planned on shooting up a place? It's probably not even hard to get.[/QUOTE]
Yep. James Holmes was absolutely decked-out in bulletproof gear he got off the internet and other places.
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232921]Yep. James Holmes was absolutely decked-out in bulletproof gear he got off the internet and other places.[/QUOTE]
He may be referring to a Hollywood bank heist in the mid-90's between two armed suspects with fully-automatic weapons and bodyarmor and the LAPD who were outgunned and pinned by the robbers.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;49232822]Don't comply with the police, got it.[/QUOTE]
If you want to get shot, go right ahead.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;49232944]He may be referring to a Hollywood bank heist in the mid-90's between two armed suspects with fully-automatic weapons and bodyarmor and the LAPD who were outgunned and pinned by the robbers.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the LAPD have to borrow guns from a gun shop to deal with it?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49233102]Didn't the LAPD have to borrow guns from a gun shop to deal with it?[/QUOTE]
Yeah they did, but not in time. It took 40 or so minutes for 4 guys from SWAT that had the proper weapons (But rushed and didn't have all their gear) to show up, and kill the final guy in that insane shootout at 6 feet distance. They also had an armored vehicle at the bank earlier, which everyone today likes to say Booo No that's over militarization, but it was used as rolling cover to save a lot of wounded people that no one could get to other wise
There were 2 officers that said fuck it, hopped in a regular patrol car, and just balls to the wall gunned it to get a wounded officer who was critical, they were lucky as shit to not be hit doing it
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232921]Yep. James Holmes was absolutely decked-out in bulletproof gear he got off the internet and other places.[/QUOTE]
Not bulletproof, just a fancy looking vest with magazine pouches on it.
Fox reported the name of the female terrorist via a police release.
Tayyeep Bin Ardogan, 28 year old Qatari citizen.
Edited: This is a hoax, the media got burned by the internet yet again
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49233519]Fox reported the name of the female terrorist via a police release.
Tayyeep Bin Ardogan, 28 year old Qatari citizen.[/QUOTE]
So this is confirmed as terrorism?
no but it's essentially the most likely scenario at this point
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
there's a press conference soon that will hopefully address all of this with full answers
Question then is, where did they get their weapons? IS supply chain? Local black market? Legal purchase over state lines?
I think that's more important to know than the exact type.
Paris Copy Catters, that's what I'm thinking
Anybody got a link to an html5 stream? I'm on ps4 because my computers power supply bit the dust
ATF confirmed one of the guns was traced to a suspect that had legally bought the weapon.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49233634]Paris Copy Catters, that's what I'm thinking[/QUOTE]
Definitely seems like a local thing as opposed to being organized by a global terror organization.
[QUOTE=ayyylmao;49233679]ATF confirmed one of the guns was traced to a suspect that had legally bought the weapon.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they did it in Cali then, from the photos I'd seen none of those guns have been legal for purchase in Cali for at least 5 years.
ive been at work all day and havent had time to keep up. can anyone get me up to speed with what all has happened?
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;49233715]ive been at work all day and havent had time to keep up. can anyone get me up to speed with what all has happened?[/QUOTE]
same ere
starred a few informative posts like one of dem killers being a qatari woman, and another havin bought his gun legally, so thats some info
still would like to know more and i doubt the last [DEL]10[/DEL] 20 pages have any groundbreaking info in them about the shooters but if so plox forward me to some of dat
[QUOTE=Fort83;49233828]Walmart.[/QUOTE]
Walmart no longer sells "scary black rifles". They stopped that a few months back.
[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/02/police-id-suspect-in-san-bernardino-massacre-as-syed-farook.html[/url]
Suspect ID'd as Syed Farook
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49233871]same ere
starred a few informative posts like one of dem killers being a qatari woman, and another havin bought his gun legally, so thats some info
still would like to know more and i doubt the last [DEL]10[/DEL] 20 pages have any groundbreaking info in them about the shooters but if so plox forward me to some of dat[/QUOTE]
Honestly the whole thread is mainly an argument about gun control more than anything.
Guys we need tougher gun laws to stop mass shootings.Clearly its the best way to stop these things from happening again. Can't you see how well it worked in France?
[QUOTE=dark soul;49234011]Guys we need tougher gun laws to stop mass shootings.Clearly its the best way to stop these things from happening again. Can't you see how well it worked in France?[/QUOTE]
The tight gun restrictions in California [I]really[/I] helped the situation today as well.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;49233715]ive been at work all day and havent had time to keep up. can anyone get me up to speed with what all has happened?[/QUOTE]
Only relevant bits have been in the last two pages. Sayid Farouk is a suspect, the female was a Qatari citizen, someone bought at least one of the guns legally but most likely it came from a different state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
