Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14 (cnn.com) 1134
An anonymous reader writes: Authorities say 14 people were killed and 14 others were injured in a mass shooting in San Bernardino today. Police have mounted an intense manhunt for the gunmen who fired into a conference hall where county employees had gathered at a service center for people with disabilities. CNN reports: "The suspects were armed with long guns, Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. 'These were people that came prepared. ... They were armed with long guns, not hand guns,' he told reporters. Most of the victims were 'centrally located in one area of the facility,' Burguan said. Police didn't exchange gunfire with the shooters, he added."
more guns needed (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess we need to make sure everyone is armed and ready to fire at all times in the whole country. That way we'll have fewer shootings.
Going to the gym? Wear an ankle holster. Going to Starbucks? Pack your trusty 12-gauge. /sarcasm
Re:more guns needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I was born in India. Some of the tightest gun control laws, similar to what the British have. There is no such thing as 'gun culture' in India. Assault weapons are impossible for civilian population to own (for instance, .223, .303, 7.62mm, these calibers are banned for civilian ownership), while cartridges of permitted firearms are difficult to come by, and expensive. Usually, assaults for robbery etc. are carried out using knives and fists and sticks and so on. But India does see at least a few mass casualty gun attacks by terrorists every year. And every few years, there is a 'terror spectacular' that creates headlines the world over. The left and the right will both trot out their tired ideas without taking any reality into account.
Terrorism is a de facto accepted mode of warfare now. The West/Nato supports irregular warfare in Russia, Syria etc. based on whether that particular regime is strategically liked or not. Without taking into consideration the ideas of the people they are supporting.. The idea of a nation state itself is a fairly modern idea, compared to what the likes of ISIS and AlQaeda want. Yet, we replace modern entities with positively antediluvian entities. Even a communist state, or a military dictatorship like in NK is preferable to ISIS/AlQaeda. At least, you can talk to NK.. If someone in ISIS/Talbn/AlQ tries to reach a compromise with us, his followers will cut his head off.
There are hundreds of thousands of foreign fighters in these places now.. whose only marketable skill is War. I am afraid, mass casualty gun attacks are here to stay and we will see some for years, punctuated by people going postal or attacks by people who are just plain nutjobs.
Re:more guns needed (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess we need to make sure everyone is armed and ready to fire at all times in the whole country. That way we'll have fewer shootings.
Going to the gym? Wear an ankle holster. Going to Starbucks? Pack your trusty 12-gauge.
Naw. About one in ten carrying concealed would do it.
Line from a friend who was a union official: "We're a poor union. We only have one pistol. But you never know who has it checked out."
Re:more guns needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Naw. About one in ten carrying concealed would do it.
Reality disagrees with you.
The USA is one of the few civilized countries where you can (legally) carry a concealed gun in some places.
It is also the place with the by far most mass shootings in the civilized world. By far, as in several times more than everybody else.
How many of those shootings were stopped/ended by someone with a concealed gun?
How many of them were not, despite people having concealed guns?
How many of them were made possible in the first place because the shooters could acquire guns that in other countries they would not have gotten?
If X is the number of shootings prevented by gun-carrying citizens and Y is the number of shootings that would not have happened if it weren't so damn easy to get a gun, then X needs to be higher than Y to use it as a pro-gun argument.
I don't see that assumption being true.
Re:more guns needed (Score:4, Insightful)
... your solution might limit the number of people getting killed but won't eliminate the problem.
Didn't claim it would eliminate the problem. But a gun-free zone didn't, either, did it? Nothing will make the world safe against pre-planned attacks by organized gangs of armed thugs (official or otherwise).
But if you're trying to MINIMIZE the carnage - whether in general or just among the innocent - having armed good-guys sprinkled through the population is far more effective than disarming all the good-guys and presenting the bad-guys with a target-rich environment of helpless victims.
This can be expected to:
- reduce the number of incidents in the first place (because SOME of the bad guys are clueful enough to realize that making themselves the immediate target of an unknown number of self-appointed guardians is detrimental to their own interests, and will switch to softer targets or just find other things to do)
- mitigate the incidents that DO occur - stopping them sooner, or even aborting them as they're getting under way.
- stop future incidents perpetrated by the same people (do you think that these guys would have been able to killed or wounded 14 in a crowd and then just DRIVE AWAY if any substantial number of the crowd had been armed?)
Criminology research tells us this expectation is actually what happens. Or you can just observe that essentially all the mass shootings in the last decades have been in gun-free zones - and some attempts have been aborted rapidly by armed - or otherwise gun-trained - citizens.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - no matter how much the anti-gun spin-meisters would try to convince you otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is someone that does not understand that owning a gun and carrying it loaded on you are different things.
Re:more guns needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Carrying a gun in this state will get you arrested (or shot) by the first cop who sees it, and CCP's are pretty hard to come by (impossible to get in Los Angeles, despite court orders to issue them).
You can be arrest for carrying a chair leg here. All the officer has to say is that you looked like you might hit someone with it.
About the only lethal weapon you can legally carry here is a fingernail clipper.
Re:more guns needed (Score:5, Funny)
It was a social center for the developmentally disabled. You think the developmentally disabled should be armed? Like in Texas?
Re:more guns needed (Score:5, Interesting)
So you have the attackers running around causing carnage. Then you have a bunch of citizens trying to "help" take out the attackers. How do the citizens know who is an attacker and who is another good guy?
Armed US civilians have a track record of getting it wrong less often then police officers. Like by a factor of 5 1/2.
I can see carrying be useful if ...
We know all these things. And more. And the well-researched and legally-vetted (sometimes different) "correct" answers to a number of such questions.
Find an NRA-certified instructor. Take (first the "basic pistol" then) the "Personal Protection" classes. Then you'll know the answers, too.
I won't try to summarize the courses here. I'm not certified to give them (my wife is), and you're not paying me for them. They're inexpensive and only take a couple weekends or so.
Re: (Score:3)
You joke, but if you parse it out mentally and actually play that scenario out - everyone open carrying would dramatically reduce the chance of mass gun violence much in the same way that nuclear weapons have reduced the chance of nuclear war.
What terrorist would want to shoot up an arena where everyone is armed? It sounds crazy and invokes images of Borderlands 1 & 2, but hell... that's got to be more effective than penning laws that only affect the people who willingly follow them.
Or it could be
Re: (Score:3)
Today, the US homicide rate is around 5. The dangerous US cities, like Chicago and Washington DC are around 15. Even Detroit is only 45.
I don't know why those cities are considered dangerous when there are cities with worse rates. Chicago isn't even in the top 100 in homicide rate. Last I checked the bad spots were almost all "smaller" cities, not LA, Chicago, NY or DC
http://www.neighborhoodscout.c... [neighborhoodscout.com]
The countdown for the Top 30 Murder Capitals of America:
Rank City
30 Baton Rouge, LA
29 Youngstown, OH
28 San Bernardino, CA
27 Oakland, CA
26 Barberton, OH
25 Poughkeepsie, NY
24 Cincinnati, OH
23 Petersburg, VA
22
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We call that mantitory gun control.
"Gun control" is hitting what you aim at.
Re: more guns needed (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, It was Ronnie Reagan who started shuttering mental heath facilities strictly to cut spending.
He used deplorable conditions within as an excuse. Living on the street so much more attuned to
freedom of expression and libertarian damages
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, It was Ronnie Reagan who started shuttering mental heath facilities strictly to cut spending.
He used deplorable conditions within as an excuse. Living on the street so much more attuned to
freedom of expression and libertarian damages
Bullshit. [nytimes.com]
Re: more guns needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:speaking of war (Score:5, Insightful)
The jews were disarmed before they were rounded up during WWII. How did not having a way to protect themselves work out for them?
Are you seriously suggesting that the German Jews of the 1930s, if they had not had gun ownership restrictions, would have been able to successfully resist the Gestapo, SD, SS and Wehrmacht? Or that the above organizations would have said to themselves, "Whoa. Our political ideology is based on blaming 'international Jewry' for the economic woes of the Aryan German volk. Since the early '20s we've been very clear in saying we'd like to see them out of Germany entirely... one way or another. But some of them have rifles or handguns, and AMG (Ach Mein Gott!) concealed carry permits! Let's back off and not implement the Final Solution."
And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany [wikipedia.org]. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them? How did the Warsaw uprising [wikipedia.org] work out for anyone?
There are plenty of valid reasons for responsible people to own guns. To claim that one of them is because it will prevent tyranny by one's own government in the modern era is totally fucking batshit insane. Find a real justification.
Re:speaking of war (Score:5, Interesting)
How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
The Warsaw Uprising worked quite well. The German occupying forces were significantly weakened by Polish insurgents just prior to the arrival of the advancing Russian forces, exactly as intended. That the Russians decided to pause their advance just outside of Warsaw, allowing the decimated Germans to slaughter the remains of the Polish insurgency before capturing Warsaw for mother Russia, is no fault of the Poles.
While the Warsaw Uprising has nothing to do with confiscation of arms, this transparently dickheaded move by Russia is but one of countless reasons why Poles, generally speaking, hate them.
Re:more guns needed (Score:4, Interesting)
now the strategy is to rush the shooter, guns blazing if the person holding the gun shooting people will not comply.
having more armed law abiding citizens who are competent and trained on their firearms will lead to having a shooter confronted with deadly force sooner,
A practical question for your brother - If he's approaching a scene where there is a gun battle between the hypothetical competent law-abiding citizen and the active shooter bad guy, how does he know which is which?
Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever your opinions on gun control are, we (the US) have managed to box ourselves into an unpleasant corner. There are way too many guns out there to have any effective method of restriction work. And way too many gun nuts.
It really is an ugly situation. Nobody is going to win here.
Except the loonies and terrorists.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever your opinions on gun control are, we (the US) have managed to box ourselves into an unpleasant corner. There are way too many guns out there to have any effective method of restriction work. And way too many gun nuts.
It really is an ugly situation. Nobody is going to win here.
Except the loonies and terrorists.
Australia used to have the same problem, but a conservative government managed to introduce gun restricts at the cost of the next election, and gun violence and accidents dropped sharply.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately our Republican's wouldn't do anything that would jeopardise an election.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Funny)
Statistics on Australian homicide [aic.gov.au] show that the number of all homicides went from 355 in 1997 to 297 in 2012. So about a 16% reduction.
Statistics on US homicides [fbi.gov] over that same time period (1997 to 2012) show the number dropping from 21,606 to 14,827. About a 31% reduction - about double that of Australia.
Seems that eliminating firearms in Australia might have actually slowed the drop in the number of homicides (assuming that Australia would have normally followed the reductions in the US), leading to a relative GAIN in the homicide rate as compared to the US over the same period.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Australia is a poor example - it has never had significant gun-related violence.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Informative)
See GP - who used Australia as an example of eliminating guns works. And the population increases of the US means it still had a bigger drop in homicides as compared to a gun-free Australia.
Er you might need to check your maths.
Australia's population grew by 33% (from 18 mil + 6 mil), whereas US only grew 16% (274mil + 45mil)
So punch in the numbers:
Australia 1997, 18 mil, 364 homicides = 2.02 deaths per 100k
Australia 2012, 24 mil, 297 homicides = 1.24 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 38.6%
USA 1997, 274 mil, 18208 homicides = 6.65 deaths per 100k
USA 2012, 319 mil, 14827 homicides = 4.65 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 30%
So the US still has a homicide rate over 3x that of Australia.
Also worth noting, Australia isn't gun free. People still own guns, but regulations ensure the firepower is limited, and that the owners responsible people.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:4, Insightful)
You also have to consider that the rate of decline is a curve. As the murder rate gets lower the rate of decline slows, because it gets harder to eliminate the rarer situations that lead to it. When you have a murder rate as high as the US, there are lots of fairly easy and effective things you can do to reduce it, which Australia has already done and can't benefit from again.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I do care about is some random nutter killing me while I'm minding my own business.
So I'm not sure if those stats are measured, but I'm betting that random homicides, the type where the victim had no prior relationship with the offender, are a lot higher in the US than anywhere else.
In Australia, I believe the number of random mass shootings (4 or more victims) since 1997 is zero.
It is significantly more difficult in the US (Score:3)
Numbers of guns aside (we are talking 300 million plus here) there is the issue of the Constitution. You have to remember that in the US the Constitution is above Federal law. All laws have to conform to it, it overrides, and thus the rights in the Bill of Rights section of it are rather sacred and protected.
Now if can be changed, but it is quite hard. It's only happened 17 times (the first 10 came in when the Constitution was first signed). First an amendment hast to be introduced. That requires either 2/3
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no question that our community is safer as a result of this. We also have the mentality that guns are very out of place in general society and if you actually ever see one it is definitely an uncomfortable feeling that you have. I can't imagine what it must be like to just accept that guns are part of your every day life or how that affects your own insecurities.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? Do you live in a place so violent that you feel a need to have deadly force constantly at your side? Are you that risk-averse?
Your grandmother may be a good shot, but does she have the reflexes to go with it? If she can't actually get a bead on a young, fast mugger before he gets within arm's range, then she's defenseless with or without her gun. You're probably younger, and therefore have those reflexes, but that means you probably can also defend yourself without having a gun, assuming your attacker doesn't have one either.
Yes, if you make guns illegal, some criminals will still have guns, but it will be fewer. Gun control is not about the rich with bodyguards, it's about the rest of us not wanting to get shot in anger by some hothead, by accident by a child, or by some nut who never should have been given a weapon. That other forms of violent crime will go up is beside the point, as you're still more likely to survive a beating than a shooting, and a criminal can only beat one person at a time.
Re: (Score:3)
More that just the 2nd amendment will need to be rewritten... A good portion of the Bill of Rights will need some revisions if we intend to allow the types of searches and taking of private property which will be necessary to remove enough guns from circulation that it will matter.
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Informative)
You could mostly fix it with free mental healthcare, but judging by the opposition to Obamacare that probably isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cue the flamewar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Separation of Church and State. There's fear that allowing same-sex marriage could result in people suing churches for refusing to perform them. Obviously, it would be a serious Constitutional violation if the courts did so, which should make those fears irrational, but the courts have been known to ignore the Constitution now and then, so maybe it isn't.
The correct (morally, legally, ethically) solution is to ban all government recognition of marriage. Require a complete separation between religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies, and completely revoke churches' rights to perform the latter. This properly ensures that A. churches cannot be sued for refusing to perform a now-strictly-religious ceremony, and B. churches that wish to perform gay marriage ceremonies would be allowed to do so. It also ensures the same legal rights (tax-wise, for example) for all couples, regardless of whether they are same-sex, because those would be based on the civil union rather than the religious marriage.
Like most political issues, there's no middle ground because both sides are arguing over one aspect of the issue when the real flaw is an entirely different aspect. Any solution that satisfies both sides must completely throw away all the existing assumptions and start from scratch. Otherwise, you end up with a solution that everyone is equally dissatisfied with, which is entirely the wrong way to govern a country.
Gun Control (Score:3, Insightful)
So, we have no idea who did it or why.
But The President is already calling for new gun control laws.
And I'm expecting to hear within the next couple of days that this could have been prevented if we'd not stripped the Feds of the authority to do mass surveillance on the US population...
Re: (Score:3)
So, we have no idea who did it or why.
But The President is already calling for new gun control laws.
And I'm expecting to hear within the next couple of days that this could have been prevented if we'd not stripped the Feds of the authority to do mass surveillance on the US population...
Don't forget that this shooting happened in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. So much so that, especially with regards to rifles, many companies sell specially modified "California compliant" versions that often include unremoveable or size-limited magazines and different furniture (namely no pistol grips). Something tells me that lenient gun laws weren't much of a factor when it comes to this particular incident. And as for Obama, well, he comes from a city that also have ve
Business is Booming (Score:4, Insightful)
I went to the local gun range today and was chatting with the owner. His business spiked since the Paris shootings, with weekly concealed carry classes booked solid through February. With this he's going to have his best Christmas sales season in years.
I'm not sure what scares me more -- random shootings, or the thought of so many yokels with concealed carry permits who've only fired a gun once or twice in their, now life trying to return fire (or thinking they can).
Re: Business is Booming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business is Booming (Score:4, Insightful)
People who conceal carry tend to practice regularly, way more than cops
Also civilian gun owners in general. Private owners tend to practice a lot, until they're confident in their own skills. Police tend to practice the minimum required by their forces - which don't want to pay for copy time on the line when they could be paying them to write tickets. Police have a lot of other stuff to be trained in, too, and I hear that only one cop in two actually has to FIRE his gun even once per career in an actual confrontation.
Ever notice that police never practice at the range at the same time civilians are there? That's because they're ROTTEN by comparison, and it embarrasses them and their departments.
and are much less likely to act in a situation than a police officer, and there are records to prove it.
And when they do, and end up firing, they're MUCH less likely t shoot someone they shouldn't have. The last figures I saw (a few year ago) had the cops about 5 1/2 times more likely, when shooting, to shoot someone they shouldn't. It's not law of small numbers, either, since civilians good-shoot substantially more crookies than cops.
In fairness to cops, they generally arrive on the scene after things have gotten out of hand and have to figure out who's at fault, while civilians involved in defence shootings were usually there from the start and have a really good idea who's who. Civilians also usually get to bail out when things get out of hand, but cops usually have to stay there and get it under control, despite the poor information available at the time.
Why is this one in the news? (Score:5, Interesting)
So everyone is talking about San Bernardino CA. Here is a twist: Did you know this was the 2nd mass shooting in the U.S. for today?
Not kidding. Earlier today in Savannah GA was another mass shooting. Another twist: This is not unusual!
On many days in the U.S., there is more than 1 mass shooting. U.S. mass shootings (meaning 4 or more people shot in an event or related events) are a daily occurrence. Starting today, we'd have to go back to November 10 to find three consecutive days without a mass shooting.
As a Canadian looking at the news flowing across the border, this boggles my mind.
Source 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsA... [reddit.com]
Source 2: http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
No need for more gun control.We need media control (Score:5, Interesting)
We really need media control.
I would say, that 1st amendment has limits. If shouting "fire" in the theater will get you in jail, because of the potential psychosis and stampede, the same way mass hysteria channels CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC, would have a right to report only statistically representative events. This should not apply to real mainstream news - Facebook, etc, because that is how many of the people get news, and Facebook is, in a way, glorified gossip club. All television does is promotion of a cheap way to get publicity.
Before one mass shooting is reported on television, there would be a forceful reporting automobile accidents, suicides, drownings, medication overdoses, cardiac arrests, hospital errors. Statistically, death from violent terrorist attack is so statistically rare that in a year there would hardly any re-portable event.
At the same time, this would be eradication of advertising, and an incentive, for those potential mass shooters/terrorists.
For they want nothing else, but fame, glory, to be shown and talked about on the news. This needs to be stopped.
__________
I am praying for the victims tonight.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. "Sensible speech control". This is going places.
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.
Re: (Score:3)
"Long guns."
How weirdly vague.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
AK-47 Type meaning "scary" rifle that is functionally the same as a hunting rifle, but "Scary" looking.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Informative)
If these are actual AK-47s, they're considered Assault Weapons under California Law and, if unregistered, are illegal. They were banned by name in 1989.
If they're AK-47 "clones" (since AK-47 is an actual trade name, not a rifle description), then out of the box, they meet the Assault Weapon criteria established in the 2000 ban, and must have been registered at that time, or they're illegal.
To have a legal, modern rifle based on the AK-47 platform, they must remove specific features that make them an Assault Weapon. Typically this is done by mounting a 10 round magazine in a fashion that can only be removed by a tool.
If they're using a modern, AK-47 pattern rifle, with removable, 30 round magazines, the rifles are illegal, and the magazines are likely illegal (magazines greater than 10 rounds were grandfathered in in the year 2000, after than they're illegal to purchase or manufacture). Rifles like this are banned already in California.
So, very likely this attack was perpetrated using illegal rifles and magazines.
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is! more laws will stop them! Just like how speed laws stopped speeding, Drug laws stopped drugs, and there is zero prostitution cince they passed those laws against paying money for sex.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit! A long gun is:
- Difficult to conceal
- Much more powerful than a gun that isn't a long gun
- Much less powerful than crew served weaponry
- Not generally capable of projecting explosives at range
- Less able to be maneuvered at close range or in buildings
- More capable of punching through light cover
- Able to fire more powerful rounds, and at longer ranges, than other weapons
The long gun could be a rifle or shotgun. It's not obvious which from long distance glimpses, so to claim it's a "semi automatic rifle" might be wrong- it could be a shotgun.
It's tactically useful, it's descriptive, and unlike bullshit media fuckstick terms, it's *correct*. It's also common parlance among anyone who deals with guns.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Informative)
True. But the sherrif that gave that information was used to the term "long gun" in his daily work conversations so he probably just used it naturally.
Number seems low (Score:5, Informative)
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
Huh? That number seems low. As of October 1, according to the Washington Post, there were 294 mass shootings so far in 2015, and that was still with three months left in the year. That accounted for 380 deaths so far, with well over 1,000 injured.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal claims "the US leads the world in mass shootings." http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-... [wsj.com]
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends on the people, I would think. Lone nuts with a grudge are probably so delusional it won't stop them. Organised terrorist groups might be deterred, but then again, the guys in France didn't seem too worried about the inevitable shoot out, and came prepared with suicide vests. Alternatively, they could just change tactics and go for bombs like the Boston Marathon bombers did. Not much good being armed will be when a nail bomb blows up ten feet away from you.
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
The reality is that we can't prevent all mass killings. Even countries like China and Iran, with incredibly restrictive gun laws, still suffer terrorist attacks.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Your imagination doesn't match reality [washingtonpost.com].
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Your imagination doesn't match reality [washingtonpost.com].
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Low.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty [nytimes.com] to protect you.
Re: (Score:3)
Now how good a shot is Joe Blow? Grandma?
Good enough. When's the last time you heard the Media reporting that a Joe Blow or Grandma caused the wrongful death of an innocent bystander?
If it's such a problem, why is the Media not reporting on it when it happens? Is it because gun manufacturers have silenced the Media?
Or is the Media not saying anything because it does not happen, because it's not actually a problem?
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Informative)
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
I'd be curious as t how many mass shootings have ever actually been met with resistance by armed citizens (not police or other armed security types). I got this list from the Washington Post, which the writer intentionally excluded off duty police our soldiers from (I'm not sure if that's fair or not):
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
I think having armed citizens might prevent some, but probably not all mass shootings. I think this idea that just blindly adding more guns into the mix is just going to make things safer seems a leap without a good deal of evidence behind that.
Also consider that, no matter how distressing mass shootings are (which, I suppose, is the point why these people do them), they make up only a tiny percentage of gun crimes in America.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Sometimes it is. There are no shortage of defensive firearm shootings in the US.
The people with a vested interest in pointing out the cons have not done so. Is it because they're too stupid to calculate the numbers? Or is it because they don't think it will help their preferred position?
Re:you're safer unarmed by 4.5x (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a University of Pennsylvania study (DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099) examined over 600 incidents in the Philly area, and found that carrying a gun actually increases ones chances of getting shot and killed:
False conclusion. The data can't reveal the claimed relationship [volokh.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's probably because everyone who's carrying already has a high risk of getting shot. That's why they've chosen to arm themselves.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
You will note that those gun free zones were within larger areas with easy availability of guns, and insufficient protection between the gun free and non gun free zones.
E.g. schools in Canada don't get so many gun shootings even though they are gun free. I.e. because Canada as a whole doesn't have easy availability of guns and protection between the US and Canada is strong. But they would if the only protection Canada had from American guns was a signboard with "gun free zone" printed on it with many exclamation signs.
So being gun free is not what encourages shootings- it is the porous border between gun free and non gun free zones.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Insightful)
"Actually, moron"
Let me stop you there as you are being moronic. You seem to understand the volume of guns but seem to think something can magically make them go away? Not going to happen. 3d printed guns? Zip guns? And the fact that there are, as you say, 250 million proper guns.
Think about this -- with reasonable care, guns last centuries. There are multitudes of 17th century guns that can still fire -- never mind the NEW stuff.
I think you need to find a different solution.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Funny)
Donald Trump knows how to make 11 million living, breathing Mexicans 'go away'. I'm sure he can get rid of a few hundred million guns...
Re: (Score:3)
Lol.. no someone is going to manufacture 3d printed guns illegally and sell them while other guns will get smuggled into the country. It happens with drugs and other crap already so there is nothing to suggest it won't happen if all guns get outlawed.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence. I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
We don't need 250 million guns. We need less guns. I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Ban guns.
That pesky 2nd amendment will need to be changed before you can just go out and collect all the guns... And don't be fooled, you will need to collect ALL of them... But I fear that your biggest obstacle will be modifying the constitution and until you do, NOTHING will really change here, Private ownership of guns will continue.
Assuming you get the constitution changed and remove the 2nd amendment, Welcome to Utopia. (NOT!).. Sure, some will willingly turn in their weapons once you get the laws changed, but others will not. What are you going to do? Grab the jack boots and literally search every nook and cranny of everybody's homes, cars, properties and persons.... Oh, wait, you are going to need to change that pesky constitution again and remove another couple of amendments....
So, do you understand how your idea is naïve and unworkable? How you will need to trample on the vary legal foundations of the country? How stupid this whole idea of yours really is?
I'm open to debate what we can do about this kind of craziness, but eliminating all guns is a non-starter. It's not possible with our current constitutional framework. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the problem and there is evidence it actually makes the situation worse.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy the cops here have guns
You sound white.
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure that worked in France.
In 2013, the US had 3.55 gun homicides per 100k residents. France had 0.22. That's 94% less. So whatever France is doing seems to work pretty well.
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How do we do that? The closes before and after I can think of is Australia.
In Australia firearm use in homicide has dropped by nearly half since the their gun laws were brought in. There has been a rise in sharp instrument usage though.
1996 was when the strict gun laws came in and from 1996 back to 1979 only 1990 & 1989 had under 600 gun deaths in a year (595 & 545) respectively. 1997 had 428, 1998 to 2001 were averaging around 320 and from 2002 to 2012 the number floated around the 230 mark.
In t
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been multiple studies on this. The majority conclude that the firearms laws of 1997 had no affect on homicide by firearm rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We currently have more firearms in Australia than before the buyback in 1997 (I don't know the comparative rates though). Either way, ownership rates dropped precipitously in 1997, and as the homicide rate by firearm continued it's already established downward trend (a fairly linear trend starting well before 1997) the ownership rate has climbed.
Australia has had multiple mass shootings and other mass murders since 1997 (you often hear claims Australia has not had any).
New Zealand is the best example of sensible firearms laws. You could practically use them as a control group against Australia's too stringent laws. Most importantly, they have a lower homicide rate by firearms than Australia, and a lower overall homicide rate than Australia.
New Zealand have not restricted semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, or particular firearm calibers. License periods are longer, and there are fewer registration requirements for firearms.
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly I'm not actually arguing that Australia's gun laws aren't too strict. As a competitive pistol shooter they are seriously annoying around things like the number of shoots per pistol. Especially since I like to use different 22s for different comps and this means I have to do a stupid number of matches a year to be compliant. I also have a pistol that can be chambered for two different rounds so it counts as two separate pistols for compliance (BLERGH).
That said this whole thing started with a comment about comparing the US to Mexico. Mexico is fucked up in all kind of ways that will skew crime figures an absolute mile. I would be kinda depressed if I was living in a first world country and trying to use a developing country as a way of arguing my system was ok. Australia does not have its system perfect, and whether it made a difference is always arguable because we don't know what Australia would look like without the laws.
In the end the US has a crazy level of gun violence. That gun violence might just be a symptom of a society that has issues, or it might be an issue with firearms. I think, though, that there are limited arguments against making it harder for guns to end up in the black market, or making it harder for people to own guns. Christ they are talking about making them register flying a fucking drone, but making people register their guns and to have a valid reason to own them is too far?
As for Australia
Mass shootings in Australia since the 28-4-96 Port Arthur Massacre.
21-10-2002 - Huan Yun Xiang - 2 people killed at Monash university
29-4-2011 - Donato Anthony Corobo - 3 people killed, 3 injured
9-11-2014 - Geoff Hunt - Murder Suicide - Killed his wife and 3 kids before killing himself.
Please let me know if I've missed any.
There was a downward trend in firearm related homicides prior to 1996 but there is a significant vertical step in the trend line that occurred in 1996. See here - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea... [gunpolicy.org]
Licensed gun owners in Australia:
2001 - 764,518
2010 - 873,625
2012 - 730,000
Number of registered firearms per 100 of population
2012: 12.499
2010: 12.44
2001: 11.22
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
Except most people shot in the US are contained in pockets of festering inter-generational poverty. Account for that variable and the US is just as safe as Europe if not more so.
The organized mass shootings in France are notable for their level of organization and the fact that they weren't limited to impoverished housing estates.
For Slashdot reader, the danger of being shot is the same in the US as it is in Europe. Any hysteria to the contrary is just people allowing themselves to fall prey to media propaganda.
In one incident, France managed to instantly catch up to all of the recent shootings that the media actually cares about in the US.
If anything, the prospect of well organized mass shootings and suicide bombers makes France FAR more dangerous to the average Slashdot reader.
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm happy the cops here have guns;
He isn't against guns. He is only against civilians having guns. He also doesn't understand the reason for Amendment #2 is precisely because government tyrants love their own guns.
In a nutshell, he is the reason I want to have guns.
Re: (Score:3)
the reason for Amendment #2 is precisely because government tyrants love their own guns.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...". There are others, including some that hew a little closer to the meaning of the words in, oh, the English language.
Re: (Score:3)
Militia means the common people being called upon to fight. Straight away this encompasses all citizens.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g... [lectlaw.com]
http://www.constitution.org/co... [constitution.org]
(and for future reference, the English language is not static, so interpretation must be done in the context of the period a piece was written)
Re: (Score:3)
Call The police... They are only minutes away when seconds count...
Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll skip the fallacies and go straight to the factual errors.
We don't need 250 million guns.
Excessive hyperbole.
310 million civil firearms in the USA in 2009 [washingtonpost.com]
civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Excessive hyperbole.
355 mass shootings this year so far. [washingtonpost.com]
On the other hand
There are more criminals than cops
I was surprised but that one hods true: In 2008, 1.2M police officers [wikipedia.org] vs. 2.4M incarcerated people [wikipedia.org]. To put in perspective, USA represents 4.4% of the world's population and 24.7% of the world's incarcerated population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
I know RTFA is passe, but you should have. The shootings took place at a center for developmentally disabled people that provides services to them, apparently at a Christmas party. "It employs nearly 670 people at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties,...", and you would expect a Christmas party would have a significant number of said employees present, even if it is just to provide services to the disabled people.
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled
Re: (Score:3)
What? Ok, they may be denied a CCP, or even a handgun permit. But there are plenty of "no paperwork" firearms that ANYONE can get.
Only illegally. In the State of California, ALL firearms transfers must be completed through an FFL dealer; any out-of-State firearm must also be registered with the State.
Re:It was a "gun free zone" that got hit. Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn. That argument has been total bullshit since the day it first oozed out of someone's ass. Shootings happen in all kinds of places, and good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy, and we should stop basing policy on fantasies.
Re:It was a "gun free zone" that got hit. Again. (Score:4, Informative)
good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy
A recent CDC-commissioned report found that defensive gun use happens *at least* as often (if not more often) than criminal gun use. But let's see a list of things that "never ever" happened:
In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”
In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”
In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested.
Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.
In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty.
In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Less guns means you believe in magic.
Re:It was a "gun free zone" that got hit. Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think you are wrong, we need more guns in the right hands... Follow me on this...
MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually provides a deterrence by making it more risky for criminals who choose to use their guns illegally. Shooters generally choose "soft" targets, places where they know guns are less common such as movie theaters or public schools for a reason. Further, having armed law abiding citizens means that it is more likely a criminal shooter will be confronted with deadl
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't that supposed to be the way things worked in the Old West? Funny, you'd think that if that had been such an effective technique, it would have spread, instead of being fairly uncommon even in places where going open-carry was once supposed to be the norm.
I'll let others debate the wisdom of adding even more ammunition ricocheting about, but what I find more interesting is that supposedly the entire nation of Germany (not exactly known for being "faint-hearted") fires off less police ammunition in an
Re:So why is this here? (Score:4, Informative)
Just don't click on the submission if you're not interested. Posts like this reveal your narcissism.
Re:So why is this here? (Score:5, Informative)
American "gun control" laws are the equivalent of dumping a coffee cup on a forest fire. An actual gun control law is what was passed in Australia, which worked pretty much as intended. Which even suggesting in the US would probably cause another civil war. And there is a huge part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
And we're back to why it will never fly in the US. So, what's the over/under on the number of days until the next mass shooting?
Re:Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack (Score:5, Funny)
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Once we find out their race and religion we'll be able to make the distinction.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Considering the shooting was at Inland Regional center [wikipedia.org], a center for developmentally disabled people, it is a high possibility of a former or current patient despite their race or religion.
Re:Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack (Score:4, Insightful)
If this ends up being a verified political terrorist attack in the vein of Paris, it will get real ugly around here.
But it seems like an unlikely choice for a political attack -- no real symbolism, and not even really much of a government symbol. I would expect anti-western terrorists to attack a mall or some other symbol of decadence -- and to die doing it, right down to the explosive vests.
It almost seems like a gang hit or some other kind of targeted killing, considering the attackers drove away. There's a lot more to this story than a lunatic with a gun or some kind of jihad.
Well then clearly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack: "1 to 3 suspects on loose"
Well then clearly, we should get an international coalition together, and begin bombing strategic targets in San Bernardino.
Re:14 is bad, but doesn't seem 'mass' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 14 is bad, but doesn't seem 'mass' (Score:5, Funny)
The definition of a mass shooting is an event where 3 or more people are shot.
We should do it by total weight, instead.
Re: (Score:3)
New York tried that. This [izismile.com] is one example of a weapon specifically constructed* for the buyback and the several hundred dollars paid per gun turned in.
*It works. So you would literally have to shut down every hardware store and confiscate 2x4s and plumbing supplies to "get guns off the street". Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wondering, could the government simply buy both the guns and gun licenses back?
No.
Make it voluntary, and make it worth doing (ie buy the guns back for more than they are worth). Would that even work, or is it just a complete waste of money?
Waste of money. Gun "buy-backs" are mostly used to get rid of (and get more than scrap value for) worthless rusted-out scrap guns and untraceably dispose of stolen guns and guns used in murders or other crimes. (Then there was that bad divorce where the gun collec
Re:Lather, rinse, repeat... (Score:4, Informative)
California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here. I seriously doubt adding an insurance requirement would have stopped this.
"We should be doing the same for guns at a minimum."
California already requires a license, with an associated test to purchase a firearm. The license is called a Firearms Safety Certificate. It has been required here for years.
The license needs to be renewed every five years, and you must pass the test again in order to renew.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fs... [ca.gov]
It used to be called the HSC for handguns, but a few years back they changed it to the FSC for all firearms.
" If your gun is stolen and used in a crime you would share in the liability, - especially if your gun was not stored in a safe manor. "
Safe storage in a secure container is the law here. It is a misdemeanour with loss of firearms rights for 10 years if you are caught not storing it correctly. Additionally you are liable for any crime that was caused by your firearm if it was not stored properly and an unauthorized individual got a hold of it.
"A gun should have a title associated with it that gets transferred even in the event of a private sale"
All guns must have a serial number on the frame. The serial number is registered to the owner and the registration is transferred even with a "private sale", inheritance, or any other legal transfer.
As an aside, there are no "private sales" in Californa. All sales must go through a licensed gun store. Even gun shows.
The only exception to this is "Curio and Relic" firearms, meaning the gun 50+ years old, and they have to be on a list designating them as such. Usually to get on this list it means they no longer make ammo for the gun. Last time I looked, there was only a handful of times a C&R firearm was used in a crime since they time they started keeping records.
"gun dealerships should be expected to perform due diligence before selling anyone a gun"
California requires a background check on all persons, they must also wait 10 days and posses a valid FSC before taking possession of a firearm. The purchaser must show two forms of ID, one must be a California state ID (or driver license) the other must have your address on it. The address must match your ID. California also requires a safe handling demonstration where the buyer must show they know how to safely load, unload, and operate the safety of the firearm they wish to purchase. The firearm shop is expected to do these checks.
The owner of the gun shop faces criminal liability (meaning go to jail, not just fines) if the shop does not follow the law. Some gun shops were shut down in the southern part of the state recently due to the owner being "not good".
"More to your point, certain kinds of mental illness would lead to the loss of gun licensure and if your mentally ill son shoots up a mall with your guns, you will be held responsible. "
This is already law here. A 5150 (going nuts and being admitted to the hospital for observation) results in an automatic 10-year loss of guns rights.
The state department of justice has a group called APPS, (that had some growing pains when they first started) that goes out and confiscates the firearms of people who were 5150ed before they get out of the hospital.
Any persons who provides a firearm to an ineligable person is guilty of a felony. If you give a gun to your crazy kid and the cops find out then you go to jail, even if your crazy kid didn't shoot up the mall.
More firearms laws won't fix this. All they will do is annoy the folks that have firearms as their hobby.
We need a culture change where crazy people don't feel that killing a bunch of people is the solution to their problems.