<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

So to be clear, you don't think gun control activists in the US have a valid point? Or you just don't think that discussion is applicable to this specific situation?

 

Even the FBI has not concluded it was terrorism or due to some ideology yet. Any evidence other than your hope of supporting your well established prejudice?

San Bernardino shooting - LA Times

www.latimes.com/.../la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shootin...

Los Angeles Times
1 hour ago - The attackers' motive is unknown. President Obama said the shooting was possibly related to terrorism but might also be workplace related

 

Workplace related pipe bombs?

 

I think gun control activists in the US have a very valid point. I might be conservative, but I guess I'm European like that .

I don't think the discussion is applicable to this specific situation. Trying to steer the discussion solely towards that - generally legitimate - issue is used to cloud the actual issue that is much more relevant to this situation, which is the attacker's likely motivation of extremist political Islam poisoning the hearts and minds of Muslims, even in the USA where the Left likes to paint any words of caution immediately as "Islamophobia" and tries to shout them down.

In fact, your country's President did exactly that, by prematurely, before the bodies were cold, making public statements about gun control, etc. - and he is now saying "this might be workplace violence" - wait, what? Workplace violence? Someone who has an arsenal of pipe bombs in their garage and obviously prepared this for ages?

It's like a desperate attempt to continue his misguided charade of "Violent Islamism has nothing to do with Islam".

 

Gun laws are absolutely the issue with guns murders whether they're gang members in Chicago, looney right wing nuts attacking Planned Parenthood, or Islamic terrorists in California. We'll spend billions of dollars catching the next Syed Farook but we can't spend a dime studying gun violence because it's illegal thanks to shills for the NRA in Congress. The whole dymanic is stupid on an epic level. The US doesn't have a monopoly on criminals, Islamists, or the mentally ill but we lead first world nations in gun crimes. All these countries went after guns and somehow have fewer gun crimes. It must be magic.

 

I agree with you in general about gun laws. In this particular case, however, the perpetrators did not act because of the "opportunity" of having easy access to guns (as might be the case in many other shootings). Their fanatism would have driven them to get guns even if it was harder to get them. I mean...they made pipe bombs. That couldn't have been stopped by any gun law? Again, I still agree with you that the evidence is overwhelming that stricter gun laws lead to fewer homicides.

 

It's just too bad that there wasn't a law against pipe bombs

 

Pretty sure closing the gun show loophole would have stopped this.

 

Came here to post this. The FBI has a specific definition of terrorism that it uses and it is too early in the investigation for them (and Obama) to label this as such.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-definition-of-terrorism/418722/

Of course all this bull$hit semantics are pretty much worthless when it comes to addressing the core issue (radicalization of an American).

 

You mean like Columbine?

 

Are people still clinging onto this workplace violence meme.

 

Inconvenient fact that Obama neglects when he claims that these shootings don't happen anywhere else in the world:

In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.

 

Facts and the truth are like kryptonite to these people.

 

Would be serious terrorists would go the distance to try to acquire weapons they need. It's a problem they have to deal when that's their only means to get weapons. Since we currently allow very easy access guns, we just make their job to kill that much easier.

 

Why pick just 2015? Because the November attack on Paris with close to 150 deaths and 350 injured certainly skew all numbers.

What Paris has is an Islamic terrorists problem in 2015 starting with the Charlie Hebdo attack in Jan and ending with (hopefully ending) with the November attack. What the US has is mass shooting on the regular basis.

 

People have to build pipe bombs. It doesn't come ready to be used. And it is rarely used perhaps because of exactly that. Something to do with easy access, high quality, reliable and ready to go.

The pipe bombs didn't kill anyone in this case and haven't done much killing in decades on US soil.

Imagine corner stores selling ready-to-be used remote detonated pipe bombs manufactured to be very reliable and guarantee to work most of the time. I'm quite sure that type of pipe bombs would have killed in this instance and killed much more over the years.

 

And to add - it is illegal and against the law to sell pipe bombs. Great example of a deadly weapon not being used regularly on US soil because it's illegal. Sounds like a path to follow for guns.

 

What happen between 1993 and 2000? Bill Clinton and signing of stricter gun control law?

And what happen on a larger time scale?

Well, let see below:

 

Why do you never cite your sources?

There have been 355 total mass shootings this year so its unlikely those numbers are right.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

There are 462 dead and 1312 wounded just this year.

The US homicide rate is 3x of France.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Gun homicide rates is US vs France is 7X

http://ihmeuw.org/3oi5