The only honest discourse on this is that nothing can be done to stop these mass shootings. People in this country just need to accept that is the new America. The old fashioned suicide has turned into kill a bunch of people first and then suicide/suicide by cop.
I think the point here is: California had all of those. Where to now? Because if adopting those sorts of gun control laws in the face of this slaughter were anything but political posturing, we'd be identifying the loophole they slipped through and not the ones they didn't. But here's a good point - the 10-round limitation on magazines. There were 3000 rounds still left in their home. They fired something like 65-75 rounds. Clearly, that law DID prevent more death, and that's a real good thing.
There is nothing absolute about my position. ANy fair minded person would agree. Anyway, it's too late for discussion. What will happen eventually is either American society accepts a likely increasing level of this sort of thing, which imo would be so corrosive as to eventually push into (further?) decline. Or perhaps at some point enough get fed up that the government has to undertake radical measures to lessen the number of guns out there. Which in turn risks what would amount to a civil war, at least in a generalized sense of violent confrontations between the government and certain gun owners. My bet is the former is more likely. It will not be pretty.
The laws in California do not prevent someone from going to Arizona, buying guns there and bringing them back. To be clear I have no idea how these particular people got their arsenal. But we do not have a national system in place for limiting access to guns.
Could help lead to actual resolution, instead of rhetoric and mud slinging; our usual 21st century discord.
At least if the mass killings are to continue we won't have to worry about crowding/over populating as much. Just might want to finally open that kevlar and flak jacket store I've always dreamed of; 'Kev's n Flaks'
Which is why JetBlue's point is so correct. Look, I'm all for more gun control. Really stringent gun control. Confiscation, even. Keep guns away from the people likely to use them for something like this. Just not me. Not to mention, even a national confiscation program wouldn't have done dick to prevent this one.
Probably the only thing that would have prevented this is community and/or family outreach. If anyone had any inclination that Farook was capable of this, they should have warned someone. I truly believe his brother and likely other family members, or close friends had an inkling. Very hard to believe this is such a big surprise for the Farook family and close friends.
This is a pretty interesting NYT page. How They Got Their Guns. "Criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 15 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons, after federal background checks led to approval of the purchases of the guns used." Already updated with info on our disgruntled county health worker and his one true love. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, husband and wife, were suspected of killing 14 people at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, Calif. Four guns were recovered: a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle, a DPMS Panther Arms assault rifle, a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Llama handgun. Over several years The F.B.I. found evidence that Mr. Farook was in touch with people domestically and abroad who have Islamist extremist views, according to officials. Before shooting The chief of the San Bernardino Police Department said he was not aware of the suspects having any previous contact with law enforcement. Before shooting All four guns were bought legally, two by one of the suspects and two by someone who is not considered a suspect, according to a senior federal law enforcement official. It is unclear where the guns were bought and if they were legal in California. Dec. 2, 2015 The couple killed 14 people at a holiday party. Investigators said it is unclear if terrorism was the motive. Reports are that he was unhappy that his employer had scheduled a Christmas party on a Wednesday so early in December, and also because Errol the Downs Syndrome kid that sorts the mail took the last chunk of pumpkin pie. (Just guessing at that last part. But it's likely.)
Case and point, from that NYT page: Dylann Roof, 21, killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. April 2015 He purchased a gun from a store in West Columbia, S.C. Mr. Roof should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from the February incident.
No, I think you're dead right here. No government bureau will ever be able to catch everything, or get everything right. Nor does it always have benevolent intentions. Family, friends, neighbors, other passengers on the same plane sensing something odd in the next row, a principal wondering why a kid takes apart a fucking clock in order to build another fucking clock in a goddamn briefcase - those are the folks best situated to prevent something like this from happening.
As I said in this thread yesterday, only proper immigration laws and surveillance can stop something like this. If they didn't have access to firearms, they would have used something else.
Wasn't there a report that their neighbor did see something but decided not to report it to the authorities because he didn't want to racially profile these people?
The laws in California do prevent that from happening, surprisingly these murderers seemed to have ignored the laws. Buying guns across state lines does have restrictions. A dealer can not sell you a long gun that is not allowed in your state. The dealer can sell you a handgun, but it must be 1. allowed in your state and 2. he must ship it to your state to a FFL to do the transfer. There is a problem with private sale of firearms. I have no issue with requiring ALL firearms to go through an FFL for transfer. Currently (depending on your state) you can buy or sell to anyone who is of legal age. You can sell rifles to out of state residents, but not handguns. You can sell handguns to same state buyers without any checks. Changing this will cost gun buyers a transfer fee, it could be a large fee depending on your state, but I think this would be a good start in controlling who can buy firearms.
Well then, you see, one can buy all of the components that make up a round of ammunition, then buy a machine that puts it together. It's actually fun to do and cost effective too. Plus you can pack in more powder and make that bullet go DUPeR BAM! There is really not much you can do to stop a crazy person with a motive to kill unarmed innocent victims following the "Gun-Free Zone" laws besides banning guns and going door to door to remove them from every household. Wonder how that would work out? Even then, there is ALWAYS a black market, and if these loons want it enough they will get it. Not to mention how easy it is to buy things on the Internet. It's not illegal to buy a barrel, or trigger, or all of the components needed to make virtually any firearm. The assembly instructions are readily available on the internets too! Imagine that. I got my concealed carry last weak, and I can promise you that If a situation like that occurred id feel a lot better about my chances with a 12 round clip of 9mm hollow point than nothing.
Wait, are you suggesting that criminals or people with evil intent are not going to obey even stricter gun laws? _
good suggestion. kinda like titles and how our vehicles change hands. problem is guns are easier to hide and easier to change hands inconspicuously. but that doesn't mean we say oh well..throw up our hands and do nothing like many are suggesting. good proposal i think
Your very statement that it is too late for discussion, and subsequent argument that the existing proliferation of guns eliminates any solution, proves you are taking an absolute position that the guns are the sole problem and thus the solution, or your lack there of claim, is solely dependent on guns. You need to understand your own position better. Guns have been widespread in this country for a long time. This is not a new phenomenon. And yet despite the availability of guns there were not significant problems with mass shootings. There is no logical correlation to be made that guns have caused this change in behavior. If it was just an availability of guns this wouldn't be a new problem. This is where you need to be rational and participate in honest discourse about what is happening and why. You don't want to, which is why you are the problem. Guns are part of the issue of making this shift in behavior in our society accomplishable but not the problem. My son likes to use the propeller blade from his GI JOE helicopter as a sword, and when he whacks his sister with it the honest solution isn't to say the problem is the toy, take it away, and believe his desire to play with a pretend sword is gone because the helicopter blade is no longer at his disposal. That's your solution, and it is completely asinine. You are afraid of honest discourse about what we are creating in society. What values we are teaching with our policies and attitudes that are generating a lot of frustration and anger that is causing people to increasingly to lash out. So you go to the simplest and most adolescent symbol you can comprehend -- it must be the guns.
This is not a perfect world in any respect. If the choice is between anarchy and a somewhat inefficient governmental approach that at least is somewhat effective, to me the choice is not all that difficult. There's a maxim that applies here - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know this is the opposite view of at least libertarian circles and theories, but I don't believe in anarchy.
