Reports of an active shooter in San Bernadino

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
SSSnail said:
Of course not, but it satisfies the talking heads and the idiots on both sides of the gun control debate, AND it helps the economy.

And the point you bring up is precisely why the existence of gun control, or not, does not matter ONE bit to the people that REALLY wanted the guns to kill. Just want to reiterate that so the idiots clamoring for "gun control" without even offering a solution can somehow understand (aside from "get rid of all guns"), or realizing what that would do, both from a civil liberty point of view to defensive contingencies that may arise.

Look at it as the same process as getting your drivers license, you NEED to be certified before you can buy a gun. Your constitutional rights can be denied if you have a criminal record, so much for that, right? So write into the bill the exact denial criteria, it isn't that difficult. Think.
Click to expand...

A drivers license and right to bare arms are two different things. And we already deny criminals the right to purchase weapons. So what does your plan do outside of harass and deny law abiding citizens the right to bare arms? And more specifically. How would it have stopped these people yesterday?

So you make the process more difficult to own a gun. These mass shooters either go through the process, get a gun, then kill. Or they bypass it all together. Rarely do mass shooters have any kind of history that would deny them the right to buy a gun. Unless you want to expand reasons well beyond breaking the law. Which is a nice big slippery slope waiting to happen.
 
UglyCasanova

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Just reported that he was in contact via the phone and social media with a known terrorist the FBI was already investigating.
 
JulesMaximus

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,578
982
126
Genx87 said:
A drivers license and right to bare arms are two different things. And we already deny criminals the right to purchase weapons. So what does your plan do outside of harass and deny law abiding citizens the right to bare arms? And more specifically. How would it have stopped these people yesterday?

So you make the process more difficult to own a gun. These mass shooters either go through the process, get a gun, then kill. Or they bypass it all together. Rarely do mass shooters have any kind of history that would deny them the right to buy a gun. Unless you want to expand reasons well beyond breaking the law. Which is a nice big slippery slope waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

They bought the guns they used legally so it would have, at the very least, made it more difficult for them to obtain these weapons.

Get ready for the assault on your slippery slope. It's coming I'm sure. President Hillary will see to that.
 
UglyCasanova

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Link

San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things -- like workplace grievances -- may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.
Click to expand...


Wtf seriously? CNN just won't drop the whole workplace violence spill. Why?
 
SSSnail

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
Genx87 said:
A drivers license and right to bare arms are two different things. And we already deny criminals the right to purchase weapons. So what does your plan do outside of harass and deny law abiding citizens the right to bare arms? And more specifically. How would it have stopped these people yesterday?

So you make the process more difficult to own a gun. These mass shooters either go through the process, get a gun, then kill. Or they bypass it all together. Rarely do mass shooters have any kind of history that would deny them the right to buy a gun. Unless you want to expand reasons well beyond breaking the law. Which is a nice big slippery slope waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
See, you're just as bad as the lefties that want to abolish all guns. NO ONE said anything about stopping the killers of yesterday, all I was doing is offering a solution to the gun control debate, get with it. It's a solution that allows for "gun control" and let you have your "constitutional rights", albeit with a bit "inconvenience". It's theater, but not without benefits.

I used the drivers license procurement process as an example, try to keep up with the conversation. But, any weapon is a very dangerous tool, and one need to be trained and certified to use it, understand? That way, we'll have less incidents of idiots shooting themselves in the ass in a theater, or a mother getting shot by her own kid, etc... And, if in the process we somehow weed out a few certifiable crazies, so be it. Or as the popular kids are saying, "deal with it!".

The people that killed yesterday, they'll get their weapons with or without gun controls, that point is moot. Why do I even have to type that? Do you really think that no one see that but you? As with anything in life, moderation is the key, try to be a bit more moderate and you won't appear as crazy.
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
SSSnail said:
See, you're just as bad as the lefties that want to abolish all guns. NO ONE said anything about stopping the killers of yesterday, all I was doing is offering a solution to the gun control debate, get with it. It's a solution that allows for "gun control" and let you have your "constitutional rights", albeit with a bit "inconvenience". It's theater, but not without benefits.

I used the drivers license procurement process as an example, try to keep up with the conversation. But, any weapon is a very dangerous tool, and one need to be trained and certified to use it, understand? That way, we'll have less incidents of idiots shooting themselves in the ass in a theater, or a mother getting shot by her own kid, etc... And, if in the process we somehow weed out a few certifiable crazies, so be it. Or as the popular kids are saying, "deal with it!".

The people that killed yesterday, they'll get their weapons with or without gun controls, that point is moot. Why do I even have to type that? Do you really think that no one see that but you? As with anything in life, moderation is the key, try to be a bit more moderate and you won't appear as crazy.
Click to expand...

Security theater is waste of resources with no benefit. And accidental death from firearm is very low. Usually under 300 a year.
 
K

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Genx87 said:
Security theater is waste of resources with no benefit. And accidental death from firearm is very low. Usually under 300 a year.
Click to expand...

I'm a big gun owner and I will admit it is very hard. "Common sense" restrictions can vary so much depending on a person's perspective and their level of education in the matter. I'm sure most people balk when I tell them I just put in an order for thousands of rounds of ammunition, but anyone who is part of the "gun community" understands it is cheaper to buy in bulk, and a few thousand rounds can easily be a few days worth of practice and/or training.

I think a version of what SSSnail said would probably work. Obviously not to combat situations as described in this thread, but how about for general safety as well as economics and public perception. Like or not, just like cars, there are certainly levels of danger. A newly licensed teenager should NOT have a powerful sports car. Many countries have tiered licenses and I believe we should have them here for cars, as well as firearms. Someone just starting out shouldn't just go down to the local sporting goods store and be able to pick up an ar10.

We actually have a Civilian Marksmanship Program here in the United States. I've mentioned my thoughts on control a few times, but why don't we expand that a bit and have even "free courses." Complete it, show general safety as well as awareness of the legalities of use and you can get qualified for the basic use of firearms. Then there are courses if you want guns that are a little more capable. Like an ar15, long range large caliber (30+) rifles. Hell, make the basic course a high school course just to provide safety and knowledge on such an important amendment.

Cost? Easily subsidized on a tax on the "fun" guns. I sure as hell don't need my 500s&w for general self defense and nobody is going to buy that as their main weapon. The same with suppressors and my 308 ar10 pistol. Tax those a little extra to pay for the programs above. I'm in California, so I can't, but I'd gladly pay the sales tax on suppressors and short barreled rifles. They pretty much stay in the safe unless I want to have "fun." Pulling out my 10mm for a bump in the night will just ensure I penetrate every wall until it hits a neighbors home and blind me with the muzzle flash.
 
Phoenix86

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
SSSnail said:
Implement a certification program, where the would be owner will have to go through a gun safety and handling course, get certified, THEN you can buy your gun. Along with the certification, the potential owner will also have to be cleared of any psychological conditions that would make owning the gun inherently dangerous to others. The certifications are not transferable, just like when you go buy a car, the drivers license is not transferable. The next owner will need to get certified as well before he or she can legally take possession of the gun.

This will also create jobs that are related to this whole certification business, better for the economy. See? I should be President.
Click to expand...

Gun safety isn't the problem it's mental health. How about we just stop selling to bat shit crazy fucks as a starting point?

Also creates jobs in a field needing expansion.
 
SSSnail

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
Genx87 said:
Security theater is waste of resources with no benefit. And accidental death from firearm is very low. Usually under 300 a year.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the TSA, and to me it's a jobs program. They're somewhat an inconvenient to your rights to travel, but you comply, and look, you STILL can travel to wherever you want. Amazing!
 
jlee

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
SSSnail said:
Tell that to the TSA, and to me it's a jobs program. They're somewhat an inconvenient to your rights to travel, but you comply, and look, you STILL can travel to wherever you want. Amazing!
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you're not arguing that we should install mandatory complexity solely to create jobs. :p
 
DrPizza

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Phoenix86 said:
Gun safety isn't the problem it's mental health. How about we just stop selling to bat shit crazy fucks as a starting point?

Also creates jobs in a field needing expansion.
Click to expand...
The number of murders committed by "bat shit crazy fucks," e.g., Aurora theater shooter, is probably less than 1% of all murders - if not, it's definitely less than 10% of all murders. Thus, I don't think mental health is the problem. That seems to be the scapegoat every time some nut shoots up a place though, which is when it becomes a big public conversation again.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
Two things stand out:

1) The packed auditorium was a perfect target for mass murder.

2) This so happened to be a Christmas banquet.

These two fucks learned how to build their bombs somewhere. And I'm thinking the mosque he attended could be under investigation.

Interesting that America's version of the Muslim brotherhood, CAIR came out of the wood work so fast.


I'm hearing conflicting reports on whether they had GoPro cameras or not.
 
Last edited:
ultimatebob

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
DCal430 said:
Please tell me why a gun that fires 20 bullets a second should be in the hands of everyday people, it would take only a few minutes to kill thousands.
Click to expand...

Please tell me where I can get a semi-automatic rifle that can fire 20 bullets a second. I can't pull the trigger anywhere near that fast.
 
H

Hoober

Diamond Member
Feb 9, 2001
4,413
58
91
LegendKiller said:
Assault rifles do it. All of them.
Click to expand...

See? It must be true.

Anubis said:
BUYCQ_tCAAA0JYk.jpg-large.jpeg
Click to expand...
 
SSSnail

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
LegendKiller said:
Assault rifles do it. All of them.
Click to expand...
Well let's see, let's paint this scenario using actual data so we can gauge how realistic it is.

This happened in California, so full automatic weapons are banned. Along with the automatic weapons ban, the large capacity magazines are also banned. Assuming they used AR-15s, which are capable of around 13 rounds a second full auto, but since this is banned, it's inconceivable that they have automatic weapons, so they must be at least triple tapping. I know, I used to do that in some video games.

Then, let's talk about magazine capacity. The large capacity magazines are banned in California, so they should only have at most 10 rounds magazines. Coupled that with the bullet release, because finger release are banned, which would add significant time to reloading.

I kinda lost track on how long it takes to fire off two magazines since they obviously are following all the bans associated with assault weapons in California...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom