[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235923]So that's it then? Are they hinting that it was an Islamist fanatic? This is going to make life miserable for so many people.[/QUOTE]
Law enforcement doesn't know yet, in their press conference they said they are still viewing all possible scenarios. What is know though is this wasn't a workplace crime of passion, this was a very planned event, not spur of the moment. I'm sure they will find out more once they scan through all their personal belongings and communications.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49235890]How would you trace a gun back to its owner if it was involved in crime otherwise?[/QUOTE]
Not an easy question to answer, but either way registration and licensing, while reasonable on paper, has been nothing but abused so far in the US. Any chance of those happening has burned up with gun owners' faith in the government not to fuck them over arbitrarily. Here's something I suggested earlier that would go a long way in the long run:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49230259]One of the biggest issues lies with the government itself at the moment. Any retail gun sales (so, any new-production firearm entering circulation), require a background check with the FBI. But the FBI is not required to respond to these, and if it doesn't, the sale goes through after three days of waiting. Several recent shooters got theirs this way when they would otherwise have been flagged and prevented from purchasing. Requiring the FBI to respond to background checks would be a good step.
[B]To add to this, I think you should be able to run background checks through FFLs for private transfers, and if you don't, you're held as an accomplice if the weapon you sold privately is then used in a crime.
[/B]
What are your thoughts on those measures?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=plunger435;49235936]Sorry he derailed this gun control thread to ask about the shooting.[/QUOTE]
yeah, even though it's easy as shit to google the news I like having the news on here to make it easier for us to talk about and reference
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;49235944]yeah, even though it's easy as shit to google the news I like having the news on here to make it easier for us to talk about and reference[/QUOTE]
I actually found out via facepunch and a friend mentioning it to me. I figured the thread would be up to date and I could see how it unfolded a little bit. Sorry?
[QUOTE=Sift;49235967]I actually found out via facepunch and a friend mentioning it to me. I figured the thread would be up to date and I could see how it unfolded a little bit. Sorry?[/QUOTE]
wait what? I was supporting what he said? I even posted the latest news a few posts up
reposting it:
[quote=whole article]Police say Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were killed in a shootout with officers hours after the attack on the Inland Regional Center that left 14 dead and over a dozen others injured. Initial reports indicated a third shooter was involved, but San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan [B]said at an evening press conference that authorities are now "reasonably confident" that there were only two suspects.[/B]
[B]Farook was an environmental health specialist with the county health department who inspected restaurants and hotels, and police say he had been attending an office holiday party in the building where the shooting occurred. Investigators believe he left the party angrily for some reason, returned with Malik, and opened fire.[/B]
According to police, they were wearing tactical gear and armed with semi-automatic hand guns and rifles. CNN [B]reported that two of the guns were legally purchased by Farook, and two rifles were legally purchased by someone else who is currently not believed to be involved in the shooting.[/B]
[B]Investigators found a bag in a conference room in the building after the shooting that contained rudimentary explosive devices rigged to a remote-controlled toy car[/B], according to CNN.
No motive has been identified at this point, and the FBI said Wednesday night that there is not yet enough information to determine whether this was an act of terrorism.
According to the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, [B]the couple had a 6-month-old daughter who they left with relatives before the shooting, claiming they had a doctor's appointment.[/B]
Farhan Khan, the husband of Farook's sister, told reporters Wednesday that the family has "absolutely no idea" why they did this.
Co-workers told the Associated Press that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia at some point, returned with a wife, and later grew a beard. According to the Washington Post, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles CAIR chapter, said Farook and Malik had been married for two years.
Farook is an American citizen who was born in Illinois. Ayloush said Malik was born in Pakistan.
[B]According to the Los Angeles Times, co-workers said Farook generally seemed quiet but happy and appeared to be "living the American dream." He was known to be a devout Muslim, but former co-worker Griselda Reisinger told the paper he "never struck me as a fanatic."[/B]
"He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back," Farook's father told the New York Daily News.
Online profiles that appear to belong to Farook provide a few additional details. In one, he describes himself as religious but modern, and says he enjoys working on vintage and modern cars, reading religious books, and "doing target practice" with his sister and friends. Another profile under the same user name on a site devoted to people seeking spouses from the United Arab Emirates lists Farook as a Sunni Muslim born in Chicago in 1987.
A baby registry on TheBump.com in Malik's name indicates a baby due date of May 17, 2015, but it only has a few items on it. Little else has been reported about her.
A home where the couple is believed to have lived in Redlands, California was searched by police on Wednesday night. Officers entered the house very cautiously out of fear that explosives may have been planted there.
Neighbors told reporters they were surprised the shooters lived in the area. One man who had been working in the area told KCAL he noticed several Middle Eastern men in the neighborhood recently, but he had not reported it to authorities.[/quote]
[URL]http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/suspects-in-san-bernardino-shooting-what-we-know[/URL]
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49235939]Law enforcement doesn't know yet, in their press conference they said they are still viewing all possible scenarios. What is know though is this wasn't a workplace crime of passion, this was a very planned event, not spur of the moment. I'm sure they will find out more once they scan through all their personal belongings and communications.[/QUOTE]
If they had rudimentary bombs with them I doubt it wasn't premeditated to some degree. Do people keep bombs ready for a rainy day? I doubt a bomb is something you can just toss together in a short period of time unless you're an expert with all the materials readily available. Which then you could assume he was planning something eventually anyway.
tiny bit more
[quote=shooting details]
One senior American official said that [B]Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and that he had not been someone the bureau was concerned about before Wednesday’s attack. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.[/B]
[B]The attack does not appear to fit neatly into any category — mass shooters usually act alone, and are rarely women — and raises unusual questions for investigators. If the killers were not terrorists, why were they prepared and equipped in advance for violence on a large scale? If they were terrorists, why did the assault appear to have elements of a workplace grudge, and why did they not choose a more symbolic or prominent target?
Most of the carnage unfolded in a single room of the Inland Regional Center, the police said, which was filled with people with whom Mr. Farook had a personal connection. While shots rang out, others in the building cowered and hid, sending text messages or making frantic calls.
The attackers drove up in the dark S.U.V. to a complex of buildings run by the Inland Regional Center, spent “several minutes” shooting inside one of the buildings before fleeing, Chief Burguan said. “They were dressed and equipped in a way that indicates they were prepared,” he said at a news conference about three hours after the shooting. “They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission.”[/B]
For hundreds of people who worked in the Inland Regional Center or were clients of its services, a quiet morning turned into a scene of utter panic and bloodshed, as people fled or hid behind locked doors and under desks, communicating with family and friends through panicked phone calls and text messages.
Jamille Navarro, who works with special needs children at the center, called her mother, Olivia, saying that there were gunman in the building.
“She was hiding in her room,” Olivia Navarro said, crying. “They turned off the lights. She was whispering because she didn’t want to be heard. I told her to stop talking. I said, ‘All right, I’ll be right there, turn out the lights, don’t do a thing.’ Why would somebody want to hurt somebody who helps children?”
[/quote]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0[/url]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49235940]Not an easy question to answer, but either way registration and licensing, while reasonable on paper, has been nothing but abused so far in the US. Any chance of those happening has burned up with gun owners' faith in the government not to fuck them over arbitrarily. Here's something I suggested earlier that would go a long way in the long run:[/QUOTE]
So you want to hold the seller responsible for a fire-arm that was transferred/stolen after they sold it, then? And either way, you'd still need some way to track who they sold it to in the first place.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236019]So you want to hold the seller responsible for a fire-arm that was transferred/stolen after they sold it, then? And either way, you'd still need some way to track who they sold it to in the first place.[/QUOTE]
If they didn't make the effort to run a free background check on the stranger they sold it to, it's a safe bet that they don't care if the gun is used legally or not.
e: Oh, you mean after the next transaction - no. If I sell a gun to George and George sells it to Bob and Bob murders Frank with it, I'm not held accountable for the murder of Frank. If George murders Frank and I never bothered to run a background check on George through an FFL, then I am.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236033]If they didn't make the effort to run a free background check on the stranger they sold it to, it's a safe bet that they don't care if the gun is used legally or not.
e: Oh, you mean after the next transaction - no. If I sell a gun to George and George sells it to Bob and Bob murders Frank with it, I'm not held accountable for the murder of Frank. If George murders Frank and I never bothered to run a background check on George through an FFL, then I am.[/QUOTE]
So then basically something that's about as effective as we currently have?
But perhaps background checks would be more effective if people didn't bitch about the wait periods and see them as an infringement of their rights to *eventually* own a gun.
I think we should control bullets more than guns. That way fp can keep their gun collection, but it will be harder for a psychopath or criminal to use those guns for crime. If bullets are heavily taxed and controlled
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236056]So then basically something that's about as effective as we currently have?
But perhaps background checks would be more effective if people didn't bitch about the wait periods and see them as an infringement of their rights to *eventually* own a gun.[/QUOTE]
Or if, like I said, the FBI was required to do its part in those checks.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236062]I think we should control bullets more than guns. That way fp can keep their gun collection, but it will be harder for a psychopath or criminal to use those guns for crime. If bullets are heavily taxed and controlled[/QUOTE]
Oh no, you can't do that, either. My gun-owning friends bitched a tremendous fit when the price of .22 ammo went up, blaming Obama and all.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236068]Or if, like I said, the FBI was required to do its part in those checks.[/QUOTE]
They are required, there's just legislation in place that allows them to skip it if it takes longer than 3 days, as was pointed out much earlier in the thread.
Controlling ammo how? Because I have super vintage guns that only take specific types of obsolete ammunition that no stores stock anymore, so I have to load it myself or order it from someone who does. It's not as easy as "control guns" "control ammo" etc. There are a lot of fine variables, you can't paint with a wide brush.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236071]Oh no, you can't do that, either. My gun-owning friends bitched a tremendous fit when the price of .22 ammo went up, blaming Obama and all.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
They are required, there's just legislation in place that allows them to skip it if it takes longer than 3 days, as was pointed out much earlier in the thread.[/QUOTE]
So I'm a law-abiding citizen and I put money down for a gun and the FBI never responds to my background check because it doesn't want to or loses the request in a filing cabinet somewhere. Do I just, what, wait forever? Thank the federal government when, 20 years later, they find my paperwork and graciously decide to stamp it?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236056]So then basically something that's about as effective as we currently have?
But perhaps background checks would be more effective if people didn't bitch about the wait periods and see them as an infringement of their rights to *eventually* own a gun.[/QUOTE]
I think we should close the legal private market for guns; I think guns should be bought and sold from a licensed Sellers only. If you want to sell your gun, you'll have to find a competitive price for it at the store. I also think that gun purchases over the Internet without the same kind of background checks and licenses should be illegal, and I think that interstate gun purchases should be way more regulated than they already are
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;49235972]wait what? I was supporting what he said? I even posted the latest news a few posts up
reposting it:
[URL]http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/suspects-in-san-bernardino-shooting-what-we-know[/URL][/QUOTE]
Did they even use any explosives in their attacks? Between all the gun debates and what-not I couldn't tell if they did or not. If not, it's strange that they would go through the lengths to make them and not use them...
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236078]Controlling ammo how? Because I have super vintage guns that only take specific types of obsolete ammunition that no stores stock anymore, so I have to load it myself or order it from someone who does. It's not as easy as "control guns" "control ammo" etc. There are a lot of fine variables, you can't paint with a wide brush.
So I'm a law-abiding citizen and I put money down for a gun and the FBI never responds to my background check because it doesn't want to or loses the request in a filing cabinet somewhere. Do I just, what, wait forever? Thank the federal government when, 20 years later, they find my paperwork and graciously decide to stamp it?[/QUOTE]
Tax the shit out of it, and basically apply the same laws the bullets as you do to guns (background checks, waiting periods, etc.) At a gun range, you should be allowed to buy ammo there but not take any home with you without a background check. Of course, this would encourage people to buy ammo in bulk but I don't see a problem with that
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236088]I think we should close the legal private market for guns; I think guns should be bought and sold from a licensed Sellers only. If you want to sell your gun, you'll have to find a competitive price for it at the store.[/quote]
Uh
[quote]I also think that gun purchases over the Internet without the same kind of background checks and licenses should be illegal,[/quote]
They already are and anything you buy on the internet has to be shipped to a licensed dealer, with the exception of guns that qualify as antiques (pre-1899).
[quote]and I think that interstate gun purchases should be way more regulated than they already are[/QUOTE]
Using an awful lot of words to say an awful lot of nothing
You are literally proposing things that only affect people who follow the law anyway and will have no impact on people who already illegally sell illegal guns to people who can't legally own them for the purpose of committing crimes.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236078]Controlling ammo how? Because I have super vintage guns that only take specific types of obsolete ammunition that no stores stock anymore, so I have to load it myself or order it from someone who does. It's not as easy as "control guns" "control ammo" etc. There are a lot of fine variables, you can't paint with a wide brush.
So I'm a law-abiding citizen and I put money down for a gun and the FBI never responds to my background check because it doesn't want to or loses the request in a filing cabinet somewhere. Do I just, what, wait forever? Thank the federal government when, 20 years later, they find my paperwork and graciously decide to stamp it?[/QUOTE]
Re-apply if it takes that long, or call them and pester them. Or perhaps relegate background checks to a separate entity that has access to FBI files if the FBI is taking too long/too busy/incompetent.
You're buying a gun, not life-saving medication or surgery. You'll live, or maybe you won't, same as if you had a gun.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236099]Tax the shit out of it, and basically apply the same laws the bullets as you do to guns (background checks, waiting periods, etc.) At a gun range, you should be allowed to buy ammo there but not take any home with you without a background check. Of course, this would encourage people to buy ammo in bulk but I don't see a problem with that[/QUOTE]
I can also see people devising means to pocket the shit out-of-sight so they can walk out with it, unless they have metal detectors in place. Either way it's a logistical night-mare, but not taking action just because it's a logistical nightmare is worse than the nightmare itself.
Personally I wonder if this violence comes from the twisted way we seem to romance violence in media and literature, never mind gun violence. Think about it, even in movies where the protagonist is shooting the fuck out of some evil dude, the audience is enthralled with this sense of "justice" for some reason. "Yeah, fuck that/those guy/s! Kill him/them all!" and feeling justified in doing so for any reason is kind of twisted. I'm not saying this in a "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" manner, I'm talking from a purely psychological stand-point in terms of how one can possibly justify doing something so fucked up to anybody. What we perceive as evil (killing people, as an antagonist would usually do) may be perceived as good for others (killing people, as a protagonist might for "justice"), and it's a twisted cycle that won't stop until we get to the root of this line of thinking which somehow seems to be naturally integrated into who we are as a species/civilization.
I think the problem lies less with people not being taught compassion and love for their fellow man, so much as it's a problem with people feeling justified in tossing those ideals out the window when it suits them.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236099]Tax the shit out of it, and basically apply the same laws the bullets as you do to guns (background checks, waiting periods, etc.) At a gun range, you should be allowed to buy ammo there but not take any home with you without a background check. Of course, this would encourage people to buy ammo in bulk but I don't see a problem with that[/QUOTE]
Taxes are already absurd on ammunition and not everyone can afford to bulk-buy.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236104]Re-apply if it takes that long, or call them and pester them. Or perhaps relegate background checks to a separate entity that has access to FBI files if the FBI is taking too long/too busy/incompetent.
You're buying a gun, not life-saving medication or surgery. You'll live, or maybe you won't, same as if you had a gun.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I can also see people devising means to pocket the shit out-of-sight so they can walk out with it, unless they have metal detectors in place. Either way it's a logistical night-mare, but not taking action just because it's a logistical nightmare is worse than the nightmare itself.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you can come up with a better idea than "yeah i know this sucks and doesn't actually achieve anything but deal with it it's for the children"
[QUOTE=Sift;49235967]I actually found out via facepunch and a friend mentioning it to me. I figured the thread would be up to date and I could see how it unfolded a little bit. Sorry?[/QUOTE]
He was agreeing with you
I'll never support a law that requires me to store guns at a range/"club". Half my guns are so old they will turn into a pile of rust dust if I don't keep them fully oiled/waxed and I don't see any point in paying a gun range's staff (people I don't know) to handle my guns and maintain them when I could just as well have them at home where I'm 100% aware of where they are and who's handling them and can personally stay on top of their maintenance.
These things are too fragile and too sensitive to chuck in a closet somewhere until I can come up with the money to pay the range their price-gouge fee to let me shoot them (which will only go up if people are legally obligated to store them there, since then they can charge as much as they want) [I]and[/I] buy expensive ammo in bulk.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236116]Taxes are already absurd on ammunition and not everyone can afford to bulk-buy.
Or maybe you can come up with a better idea than "yeah i know this sucks and doesn't actually achieve anything but deal with it it's for the children"[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you can stop throwing a childish fit like a toddler because you can't get your shiny new toy exactly when you want it, and so would rather leave holes in a system that you belly-ache can't be enforced partially because of impatient people like you.
You want them to actually give a shit about background checks? Write a congressman. That's what they're there for.
[highlight](User was banned for this post (""Titty-baby" made me laugh, but this is still flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236151]Or maybe you can stop throwing a titty-baby fit like a toddler because you can't get your shiny new toy exactly when you want it, and so would rather leave holes in a system that you belly-ache can't be enforced purely because of impatient people like you.
You want them to actually give a shit about background checks? Write a congressman. That's what they're there for.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe I don't have to support arbitrary new restrictions that pointlessly change the way things are in the name of ineffectually addressing a problem that doesn't even exist in my area and barely exists in others???? Because I'm the person your half-baked idea would affect, not the person who would actually be committing crimes?
I've been suggesting tightening up the slack in these systems for the entire thread, "indefinite waiting period" is not and never will be a good idea, legally obligating the FBI to respond to the background checks it's supposed to be handling, however, is. Maybe if you people made an effort to argue with what we're actually saying instead of blindly railing against this image of us that you've invented to justify your paranoia of other humans you wouldn't sound so much like Jack Thompson after a new GTA game comes out.
Remember him? Yeah, he was a guy who formed all his opinions from misleading statistics reported by the profit-driven sensationalist media and became so convinced of them he tried to legislate video games away. Know what gamers said? "No, that's dumb, you don't know all the facts and you don't understand how this will actually affect the majority of us versus the disturbed people who were going to commit crimes anyway."
That sounds familiar...
First Paris and now this. What has the world come to?
My life is literally meaningless without my collection of antique muskets, AR-15's, and hand guns.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49236447]My life is literally meaningless without my collection of antique muskets, AR-15's, and hand guns.[/QUOTE]
I think it is already established your position on guns.
Hope the suspects died in load of pain
Ok, so from what we know now, guns were purchased legally. Meaning, they went through a background check, and since these people did no wrong before hand that was recorded, they passed it. Obama's Universal background check law, wouldn't have worked in this situation. As for an AWB. We already had one, it didn't fix anything. Cali has one as well. Honestly, could've used a mini-14 and got the same results. Plus, if you plan on doing one, you really wouldn't care about laws. Nothing proposed would've stopped this, yet again.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235789]getting rid of a 1 to 1 gun-to-person ratio without having fifty years worth of protests and rioting by just banning the concept of a gun.[/QUOTE]
Gun control does not necessarily include this. You can have something in abundance, but still have it tightly and reasonably regulated.
See: pharmaceuticals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
