MiZery;842608103 said:

---

Hanky1.. 'Muslims'... am I right??

---

How did you know they were Muslims? Good call. I didn't even find out today when I woke up and read the latest updates. Both Muslims.

hanky1;842608357 said:

---

How did you know they were Muslims? Good call. I didn't even find out today when I woke up and read the latest updates. Both Muslims.

---

What did their shooting have to do with islam? Were the previous shootings in this country by Muslims, or do you just like to do this for muslims only

MiZery;842608377 said:

---

What did their shooting have to do with islam? Were the previous shootings in this country by Muslims, or do you just like to do this for muslims only

---

It had nothing to do with Islam. You're the one that pointed out that they were Muslim and you were right.

The NYDN got it right. That is all.

[video=youtube;fv7U6WuKkSk][/video]

We don't know yet if their religion played a role in their actions. There are certainly a number of suspicious elements to this, but TBD.

Re firearms, the President and others are very good at voicing generic calls to action. That is insufficient. What specifically should be done that isn't already on the books? What's the solution?

I read reports that they used legally purchased handguns. How do you stop them from being used in an attrocity?

I read reports that they used AR15 "type" rifles purchased by someone else, maybe a roommate. AR15's are specifically banned by name in CA. "Assault Rifles" - I think - are also banned in CA. I think (I'm not up to speed on CA firearms law) it is illegal in CA to transfer any firearm - including private party to private party - without doing a background check. So it appears several laws may have already been broken.

I do not offer this to be provocative. I'm serious - nobody wants to see this happen. Let's see some specific proposals instead of the generic sweeping statements. Then let's assess the proposals against the spate of shooting incidents and determine if any of them would have been stopped.

Some of you may not like it, but the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, which means at a bare bones minimum firearms defined as self defense firearms are here to stay. So move past the pie in the sky confiscation / elimination scenario and lets get real about this.

I'll start. I keep all my firearms locked in a safe. I'm on board with that being mandatory. And something needs to be done about mental health and firearms. I could also see some sort of statutory scheme created to hold gun owners civilly liable if they didn't properly lock/store a firearm and it was used in a crime.

tequila4kapp;842608575 said:

---

We don't know yet if their religion played a role in their actions. There are certainly a number of suspicious elements to this, but TBD.

Re firearms, the President and others are very good at voicing generic calls to action. That is insufficient. What specifically should be done that isn't already on the books? What's the solution?

I read reports that they used legally purchased handguns. How do you stop them from being used in an attrocity?

I read reports that they used AR15 "type" rifles purchased by someone else, maybe a roommate. AR15's are specifically banned by name in CA. "Assault Rifles" - I think - are also banned in CA. I think (I'm not up to speed on CA firearms law) it is illegal in CA to transfer any firearm - including private party to private party - without doing a background check. So it appears several laws may have already been broken.

I do not offer this to be provocative. I'm serious - nobody wants to see this happen. Let's see some specific proposals instead of the generic sweeping statements. Then let's assess the proposals against the spate of shooting incidents and determine if any of them would have been stopped.

Some of you may not like it, but the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, which means at a bare bones minimum firearms defined as self defense firearms are here to stay. So move past the pie in the sky confiscation / elimination scenario and lets get real about this.

I'll start. I keep all my firearms locked in a safe. I'm on board with that being mandatory. And something needs to be done about mental health and firearms. I could also see some sort of statutory scheme created to hold gun owners civilly liable if they didn't properly lock/store a firearm and it was used in a crime.

---

There needs to be moves to the center by both sides of this contentious situation. The stonewallers on either side are in their passion are keeping anything from happening. Feet in concrete means nothing gets done. It is time for change, so moderate the change--leave a little something on the table for both sides.

GivemTheAxe;842608272 said:

---

Yes but if you limit the number of new gun sales NATIONWIDE eventually the existing guns in operation will be significantly reduced by attrition and gun-buyback programs and confiscation upon arrest of felons carrying guns.

---

Attrition rate due to the three factors you listed will have a negligible impact on the number of firearms out there. Most firearms that aren't neglected will continue to be useful for 150+ years unless they are shot A LOT. Most guns aren't shot very much and rust is their biggest enemy for functionality.

tequila4kapp;842608575 said:

---

I read reports that they used AR15 "type" rifles purchased by someone else, maybe a roommate. AR15's are specifically banned by name in CA. "Assault Rifles" - I think - are also banned in CA. I think (I'm not up to speed on CA firearms law) it is illegal in CA to transfer any firearm - including private party to private party - without doing a background check. So it appears several laws may have already been broken.

I'll start. I keep all my firearms locked in a safe. I'm on board with that being mandatory. And something needs to be done about mental health and firearms. I could also see some sort of statutory scheme created to hold gun owners civilly liable if they didn't properly lock/store a firearm and it was used in a crime.

---

Semi-automatic AR15 and AK "type" rifles are banned by name (Roberti Roos 1989) and by feature (SB23 1999) but in practice they are currently readily available in certain configurations that can fairly readily be converted to an illegal fully functional configuration.

Most storage devices sold aren't going to provide a lot of resistance to thieves, but I agree that something is better than nothing.

Banning simple mechanical objects like guns is not going to be a simple task. People think they can just make the "bad ones" illegal, but there is really very little separating the common hunting arms from the "evil assault weapons".

End the war on freedom. End the war on drugs, firearms, privacy, personal computing, etc.

There's what SHOULD be done and what CAN be done.

IMO, what should be done is: 1. moving toward only smart guns (if they're stolen, they can't be used by anyone else). 2. universal background checks. 3. background checks for purchases of ammunition. 3. banning (nationwide) of fully automatic weapons. 4. mandatory locking of guns in storage (homes, cars, etc.).

What CAN be done: nothing. Except maybe the background check expansion.

oski003;842608288 said:

---

Obama said that no industralized country has a problem with mass shootings close to the scale of the USA.

---

I hate that our president makes these types of tone-deaf statements in light of tragedies in Paris and other parts of Europe and Africa. While I have never and will never own a gun and I am baffled by pull the NRA has in getting corrupt politicians to agree to ridiculous positions like not prohibiting guns to those on no-fly-list, I am also confused by why he is using this as an opportunity to lecture us on gun control issue. I look at what even a questionable leader like Hollande can do in the face of tragedy and Hollande's ability to take action, start healing, and unify the nations, and I compare that to what Obama does in situations like this as if his job is to give us a lecture on how smart and moral he is, and it really breaks my heart. While gun control is necessary, by making this about guns and not about ideology, fanaticism, income inequality, and all other underlying matters, he is losing another opportunity to lead. I don't care whether someone causes mass destruction with a pressure cooker or with guns, it is the motives and not the weapons we need to deal with. But I know that is not politically correct.

What should be done:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

sycasey;842608654 said:

---

What should be done:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

---

At first this response aggravated me because it read as flippant / un-serious. But you know what, I'm glad you said this. You may be right. But it is never going to happen. So what's next?

tequila4kapp;842608662 said:

---

At first this response aggravated me because it read as flippant / un-serious. But you know what, I'm glad you said this. You may be right. But it is never going to happen. So what's next?

---

You need to be better than the NRA in "contributing" to corrupt senators and representatives. Put your money where your mouth is. I would also say that the states need to adopt tougher laws (ban on assault rifles deemed constitutional), but, as long as guns can be carried over state lines, it won't be effective. However, let's not confuse this as a gun control issue. Extreme Islamist would have found other ways (like in Boston) to create mass destruction even if guns were hard to come by.

calbear93;842608669 said:

---

You need to be better than the NRA in "contributing" to corrupt senators and representatives. Put your money where your mouth is. I would also say that the states need to adopt tougher laws (ban on assault rifles deemed constitutional), but, as long as guns can be carried over state lines, it won't be effective. However, let's not confuse this as a gun control issue. Extreme Islamist would have found other ways (like in Boston) to create mass destruction even if guns were hard to come by.

---

And, not to forget the part of oaths that refer to "enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.
NRA-protected DOMESTIC enemies have nothing to do with foreign enemies - we own them; they're ours.
That the majority of responsible gun owners are disgusted, to say the least, doesn't phase the multi-millionaire "executives" in the NRA. They're bought and paid for by the munitions manufacturers.

"Free" enterprise ... gotta luv it. :p

tequila4kapp;842608662 said:

---

At first this response aggravated me because it read as flippant / un-serious. But you know what, I'm glad you said this. You may be right. But it is never going to happen. So what's next?

---

This response will seem a bit flippant/unserious, too: But what if we bypass the 2nd Amendment by putting strict restrictions on the sale of ammunition to private citizens? And by that I mean, we ban the sale of bullets and only allow the sale of rubber/non-lethal ammunition. I don't even know if that would work in most/all/any guns. I also don't doubt that NRA/gun lobby lawyers would argue that it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by rendering the 2nd Amendment useless and I don't doubt they'd find sympathetic ears on the Supreme Court. But it is time to do something, and it's time to do something that will work. For example, background checks are useless when bad guys don't have anything in their history to raise an alarm.

tequila4kapp;842608662 said:

---

At first this response aggravated me because it read as flippant / un-serious. But you know what, I'm glad you said this. You may be right. But it is never going to happen. So what's next?

---

Right, note that I classified that suggestion as a "should be." I know it's not a realistic option right now. But I think saying so at least helps to frame the debate: in this case, the Bill of Rights is actually the PROBLEM. It makes people think about owning guns as some kind of sacred right, rather than as a sober responsibility.

The debate needs to be re-focused to actually put the option of repeal on the table. Again, not that it will happen, but if you talk about it then the "middle" shifts to something more moderate like universal background checks or harsher penalties for gun owners who manage their guns unsafely.

This has been talked about for some time and I'd love to see it happen. If not restrictions then tax the sh!t out of it like we do for cigarettes.

510Bear;842608420 said:

---

The NYDN got it right. That is all.

---

So Republicans offer comfort to relatives of victims, democrats hijack their tragedy to push their political agenda while the bodies are still warm?

Assuming this event was a terrorist act, why?

Is The Dishrag reaching out to Teabaggers by killing gubmnt workers in a facility which lends services to Takers?

Strange times, indeed.

norcal_bear;842608751 said:

---

So Republicans offer comfort to relatives of victims, democrats hijack their tragedy to push their political agenda while the bodies are still warm?

---

If by "push their political agenda" you mean "call for action as opposed to just praying for a solution," then yes.

sycasey;842608716 said:

---

Right, note that I classified that suggestion as a "should be." I know it's not a realistic option right now. But I think saying so at least helps to frame the debate: in this case, the Bill of Rights is actually the PROBLEM. It makes people think about owning guns as some kind of sacred right, rather than as a sober responsibility.

The debate needs to be re-focused to actually put the option of repeal on the table. Again, not that it will happen, but if you talk about it then the "middle" shifts to something more moderate like universal background checks or harsher penalties for gun owners who manage their guns unsafely.

---

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

Get a couple of serious death threats and the 2nd Amendment suddenly seems like a friend.

Actually I do know how this could end. ISIL takes on the NRA and it's done. LePierre and company gun it out with guys who want to die...everyone losses and we win.

Rushinbear;842608779 said:

---

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

Get a couple of serious death threats and the 2nd Amendment suddenly seems like a friend.

---

Not really. I'm under no delusion that me with a gun would be especially safer if someone wanted badly enough to kill me.

Bobodeluxe;842608758 said:

---

Assuming this event was a terrorist act, why?

Is The Dishrag reaching out to Teabaggers by killing gubmnt workers in a facility which lends services to Takers?

Strange times, indeed.

---

I don't think anyone is saying it, as you presume. But if they were, the reasons might include that they are Muslim (gasp, yes, that can be a factor), had recently traveled to Pakistan, are described as having recently radicalized, have been in contact with others suspected of terrorism/terrorist connections by the FBI, had over 5K rounds of ammunition, had enough explosive device making apparatus in their home that it is being described as an IED factory, felt that merely shooting and killing 14 people was inadequate so they left bombs behind, reportedly moved through the office facility with precision and coordination and in a military like fashion, one of the shooters was a female, both shooters were parents of a 6 month old daughter and more. Does that sound like a probable work place violence situation to you? Yeah, me neither. But in the face of all that we are overwhelmingly being patient and waiting for official proof before calling it the T word.

We might be able to get rid of guns if they manufactured them so they interfere with cell phones.
OK, not going to happen. Just a thought.

Bobodeluxe;842608758 said:

---

Assuming this event was a terrorist act, why?

Is The Dishrag reaching out to Teabaggers by killing gubmnt workers in a facility which lends services to Takers?

Strange times, indeed.

---

I think your definition of terrorism is far too narrow if you don't think it's terrorism. Terrorism need not be motivated by politics or religion or anything else. Terrorism strikes terror in the general population that an event like this can happen at any time. This is absolutely terrorism, no matter "why" these people committed this act or why they targeted the place they did.

beelzebear;842608797 said:

---

Actually I do know how this could end. ISIL takes on the NRA and it's done. LePierre and company gun it out with guys who want to die...everyone losses and we win.

---

+1 ... image of the unused gun, safety on, being taken out of LePierre's dead hands, his pants soiled, wet, stinky.

wifeisafurd;842608271 said:

---

Or maybe not. Names like Mark Chahal, Roger Warren, Mark Lepine, Victor Hoffman, etc. mean anything to you? Hint: they are Canadians that shot up places. Our northern cousins are not immune to the problem, though is the frequency of mass killings is far less (so is their population). BTW, while Canada does limit certain types of weapons, its probably on the US side of the equation when it comes to ownership and regulation. You might want to consider moving to China for a country with significant controls on firearms (this from a non-gun owner).

---

You could live in China and live in a whole different kind of fear.
I'd rather take my chances here.
Of course I've heard New Zealand is nice but I think they had a mass shooting as well some years ago.

Some people live in the south pole year round and swear by it.
Others just swear. The cabin fever must be intense but no mass shootings that I know of. There could be a risk of cannibalism.

norcal_bear;842608751 said:

---

So Republicans offer comfort to relatives of victims, democrats hijack their tragedy to push their political agenda while the bodies are still warm?

---

If your loved one had been a victim yesterday, do you think a politician saying "thoughts and prayers" would offer you ANY comfort? It wouldn't for me. I'd be angry that people who could have done things to prevent this refused. And I'd be the first one in line asking for more to be done to reduce the risk that anyone else had to endure it.

grandmastapoop;842608885 said:

---

I think your definition of terrorism is far too narrow if you don't think it's terrorism. Terrorism need not be motivated by politics or religion or anything else. Terrorism strikes terror in the general population that an event like this can happen at any time. This is absolutely terrorism, no matter "why" these people committed this act or why they targeted the place they did.

---

Actually based on the dictionary definition of "terrorism" you do need some kind of political aim.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Quote:

---

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

---

The "why" matters very much.

sycasey;842608900 said:

---

Actually based on the dictionary definition of "terrorism" you do need some kind of political aim.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism


The "why" matters very much.

---

I wrote that poorly. There's always a "why" and it matters. I was trying to say that the specific political/social/religious/whatever "why" need not be known to understand that this was terrorism.

sycasey;842608803 said:

---

Not really. I'm under no delusion that me with a gun would be especially safer if someone wanted badly enough to kill me.

---

What? You would call the police and wait for them to come to your aid?

GivemTheAxe;842608272 said:

---

Yes but if you limit the number of new gun sales NATIONWIDE eventually the existing guns in operation will be significantly reduced by attrition and gun-buyback programs and confiscation upon arrest of felons carrying guns.

---

Just an ICYMI - there was a gun buyback in North Carolina, it netted 1 bb gun. Most gun-buyback programs are huge failures and mostly net non-functioning antiques.

Rushinbear;842608949 said:

---

What? You would call the police and wait for them to come to your aid?

---

This is such a hypothetical I'm not sure how to respond.

Thoughts and prayers ... Columbine, Sandy Hook, et.al. ... Isn't faith wonderful?
Let's say a prayer for Cal football .. then onward to 12-0.
Or, maybe not.