|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 03 2015 20:18 Doraemon wrote:
i can't believe people here actually believe arming people and making weapons more accessible is a solution
I doubt people actually believe that (or they are against gun control because they are so batshit crazy there is no way they get a gun when people actually look at them). It's just so ridiculous it kills the conversation without having to think up a valid reason.
|
On December 04 2015 00:48 Mercy13 wrote:
Another point that is often missed is that in the US over 20,000 people per year use guns to commit suicide. Other countries that made it harder to get firearms saw their suicide rates plummet. Giving everyone guns obviously won't help fix that problem.
Anyway, is there any evidence that making guns more readily accessible reduces violence? You'd think gun rights supporters wouldn't spend so much time and money lobbying the government to prevent research into this issue if they expected that the data would show that having more guns would cause less violence...
People do study defensive gun use, yes, though it's mostly survey-based and descriptive and predictive and as far as I know has never assessed whether defensive gun use differs based upon level of gun control in an area after gun control legislation is passed. The studies tend to have a lot of limitations as well in that it's can be very difficult to assess whether an individual case was actually DGU and the definitions vary incredibly widely and they use surveys which have a ton of unavoidable biases.
I cannot imagine that Bernie Sanders' gun control platform, for example, would stop very many cases of defensive gun use compared to the cases of gun violence it would stop, but we will probably never know that because it's too hard to study.
|
On December 03 2015 18:45 Slaughter wrote:
Are you really arguing that everyone, or most, people should be armed? Or do you just want poor people to have guns to make the (probably inevitable) glorious proletariat revolution more successful? Throwing more guns at the problem is far from a solution. Is the US supposed to become like the glorified media version of the old west? I mean I know people liked their spaghetti westerns but come on.
I wish our gun culture was different and there weren't so many flying around. If it was, I think gun control could be successful. As it is, I believe we could do a lot more to prevent these tragedies by making more stringent background checks and waiting periods for deadly weapons. But I also believe that with the number of mass shootings seemingly rising, and the far right nutbags in my part of the country increasingly paranoid about our government, it makes sense for my family to have a gun in the home.
After the suspect was at large last night and the police force warned people to stay in their homes with their doors locked, conservative pundits started tweeting out that they hoped people had a gun in their homes. It sickens me to say it, but that resonated with me and if that situation happened near where I live, I would wish I had a gun and knew how to use it.
It is great for society if everyone thinks that way? No, not really, but that would be no consolation to me if I ever needed one and didn't have it.
If it wasn't clear, I don't own a gun and before a year ago never thought I would own a gun. But it seems more plausible to me every day.
|
On December 04 2015 01:10 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 18:45 Slaughter wrote:
Are you really arguing that everyone, or most, people should be armed? Or do you just want poor people to have guns to make the (probably inevitable) glorious proletariat revolution more successful? Throwing more guns at the problem is far from a solution. Is the US supposed to become like the glorified media version of the old west? I mean I know people liked their spaghetti westerns but come on. I wish our gun culture was different and there weren't so many flying around. If it was, I think gun control could be successful. As it is, I believe we could do a lot more to prevent these tragedies by making more stringent background checks and waiting periods for deadly weapons. But I also believe that with the number of mass shootings seemingly rising, and the far right nutbags in my part of the country increasingly paranoid about our government, it makes sense for my family to have a gun in the home. After the suspect was at large last night and the police force warned people to stay in their homes with their doors locked, conservative pundits started tweeting out that they hoped people had a gun in their homes. It sickens me to say it, but that resonated with me and if that situation happened near where I live, I would wish I had a gun and knew how to use it. It is great for society if everyone thinks that way? No, not really, but that would be no consolation to me if I ever needed one and didn't have it. If it wasn't clear, I don't own a gun and before a year ago never thought I would own a gun. But it seems more plausible to me every day.
I think pointing a gun at a heavily armed group of people probably makes your family more likely to get killed than not pointing a gun at them, though, unless the armed people are very specifically aiming to kill all civilians in the area.
|
Gun popularity in US has nothing to do with their perceived role in crime discouragement, or tyrannical government deterrent. So approaching the issue from that side really beats on a dead horse.
|
So I have a friend who "knows people" in US intelligence and special forces. The Feds knew who was responsible for the shooting almost immediately. Apparently there were also six people involved. Not just three.
|
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian.
|
I like how even when the Feds know about these people they still fail to act on it appropriately. One would think that after 9/11 when they knew about the guys involved they would take these sorts of leads more seriously. Surely they can do something before an atrocity happens, though I understand it would be rather difficult to say "they haven't done anything yet but we think they are going to, lets lock them up", but there must be something like increased surveillance or something that they can do.
|
Assuming the rumor mill is correct, the Feds might not have had enough information to act on or arrest them. There are plenty of criminals the police are aware that they don't' have sufficient evidence to arrest. That is why police work is hard.
|
On December 04 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:
Assuming the rumor mill is correct, the Feds might not have had enough information to act on or arrest them. There are plenty of criminals the police are aware that they don't' have sufficient evidence to arrest. That is why police work is hard.
I wonder how many years (days) until a Republican candidates says we should arrest suspected criminals(if they're not white) before they commit a crime.
|
On December 04 2015 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 03:02 Plansix wrote:
Assuming the rumor mill is correct, the Feds might not have had enough information to act on or arrest them. There are plenty of criminals the police are aware that they don't' have sufficient evidence to arrest. That is why police work is hard. I wonder how many years (days) until a Republican candidates says we should arrest suspected criminals(if they're not white) before they commit a crime.
A little while after Trump is elected, I will assume.
But seriously that isn't just a Republican issue. The hawkish democrats love the strike first, prove they were guilty or not later system when dealing with non-americans. They seem to not be as pro that system when it comes to people in the US, but I could see a turn.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 04 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:
So I have a friend who "knows people" in US intelligence and special forces. The Feds knew who was responsible for the shooting almost immediately. Apparently there were also six people involved. Not just three.
pretty standard. they track the murmurs but the actual planning intel required to take action are better kept in secrecy.
|
On December 04 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote:
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian.
I don't understand this. I don't see any reason to conceal the identity. And I don't see why they would say only 2 people were involved instead of 6 if that is true.
|
On December 04 2015 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote:
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian. I don't understand this. I don't see any reason to conceal the identity. And I don't see why they would say only 2 people were involved instead of 6 if that is true.
Because they are not 100% sure its six people? Why release information if you can't be sure its 100% correct? Why does the general public need live updates on any partial or incomplete information they may have collected?
|
On December 04 2015 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote:
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian. I don't understand this. I don't see any reason to conceal the identity. And I don't see why they would say only 2 people were involved instead of 6 if that is true.
I can very easily see why authorities would withhold the ID and number of suspects: to prevent panic -- particularly when they already had a good lead on who they were looking for.
|
On December 04 2015 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote:
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian. I don't understand this. I don't see any reason to conceal the identity. And I don't see why they would say only 2 people were involved instead of 6 if that is true.
Because people who were involved with this react differently depending on what news is made public.
|
On December 04 2015 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:47 cLutZ wrote:
I find 6 to be a not very grounded number. But clearly from the beginning the police in this situation were attempting to conceal the identities of the shooters. The police Chiefs press conference was Orwellian. I don't understand this. I don't see any reason to conceal the identity. And I don't see why they would say only 2 people were involved instead of 6 if that is true.
Well, tactically they may have been tracking down co-conspirators that didn't pull the triggers. But the taking points went far beyond that. There refused to give the age and ethnicity of the dead shooters, and refused to give any identifying information about the suspect they had in custody, even gender. To me the two most plausible explanations are that the government was involved (sting gone wrong type situation) and/or a Benghazi-type "we don't want to say it was Islamic terrorism because it ruins the narrative".
|
The San Bernardino massacre shooters had extensive amounts of ammunition and in their home at the time they were killed in a shootout with police, the city's police chief said Thursday.
San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said that Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, fired between 65 and 75 rifle rounds during the shooting at a county health department holiday party, then unloaded about that number in a later confrontation with police.
Fourteen died in the holiday party carnage and 21 more were wounded, according to Burguan. He said two police officers suffered injuries in the subsequent shootout.
Authorities later found thousands more rounds of ammunition at the couple's residence, 12 pipe bombs and hundreds of tools that "could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," the chief said.
Burguan said "we still don't have a motive," but speculated that the couple may have been planning more carnage.
"They were equipped ... and they could have done another attack," the chief said.
Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
CNN
|
The shooter had terrorist ties it has come out, so this is another radical Islamic terrorist attack. Apparently they also had up to 20 pipe bombs which could have been as much or more damaging than the rifles used. You're not going to be able to pass legislation to stop terrorists from making homemade bombs and such.
Just another example that shows how Trump is right, that we have a radical Muslim problem. Of course, most Muslims are good people and when people refer to radical Muslims, we aren't talking about Muslims as a whole. Just the minority of radicals who commit terrorism because of their radical Islamic beliefs.
A lot more will come out, I'm sure there's many more involved than just the 3 perpetrators.
|
On December 04 2015 02:03 Hier wrote:
Gun popularity in US has nothing to do with their perceived role in crime discouragement, or tyrannical government deterrent. So approaching the issue from that side really beats on a dead horse.
The 2nd Amendment is for self defense against the common criminal AND for tyrannical government. Most Americans believe in the 2nd Amendment more than they like guns for the hell of it. The writings of the 2nd Amendment and the writings of the Founding Fathers made it clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
