Mass Shooting in San Bernardino: 2 shooters and a guy with a warrant

[Dugout DickStone]

I am on the capacity band wagon.  Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets?  For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc.  In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants.   If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.

Why should "need" justify the existence of anything?  We are talking about a right here.  Not a need.

Ownership is the right.  No specifics about type, quantity, etc.

I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.

They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?

What is a parabellum?

www.google.com

[Emo EMAW]

The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.

Guy on the radio this morning was trying to argue why "liberals" are dumb for wanting to restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns

Did he mention that air travel is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution? 

[ednksu]

edn, dax, FWIW the manufacturers of these guns, both California legal and not, don't even call them assault rifles.  They are "modern sporting rifles."  An assault rifle is carbine length or shorter, shooting a rifle cartridge (tapered, necked down), and capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire.

Agreed which is why I wanted to seed Dax with some terms some pages ago to google to learn about these differences. 

Assault Rifles has a meaning, assault weapons does not.  You need to educate yourself on the meanings of these words/phrases.

Because generic terms used to ban things, versus classes of guns, versus common usage vary greatly and have real world impacts.  When people talk about these weapons being "illegal" it matters a lot because it could have been a legal weapon, a legal weapon modified with legal "characteristics", a straw sale, an illegal weapon imported, or the most unlikely a legal weapon grandfathered in. 

[EMAWican]

Let's do the math (no mocat). 70 rounds in the building, 35 deaths and injuries. With that kind of shooting maybe they were using 10 round mags, hell idk.

[Dugout DickStone]

The gun control issue really does a good job of separating intelligent people from the gun nuts.

Guy on the radio this morning was trying to argue why "liberals" are dumb for wanting to restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns

Did he mention that air travel is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

No, that would have exposed him as a fool.

[renocat]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

[sonofdaxjones]

edn, dax, FWIW the manufacturers of these guns, both California legal and not, don't even call them assault rifles.  They are "modern sporting rifles."  An assault rifle is carbine length or shorter, shooting a rifle cartridge (tapered, necked down), and capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire.

Agreed which is why I wanted to seed Dax with some terms some pages ago to google to learn about these differences. 

Assault Rifles has a meaning, assault weapons does not.  You need to educate yourself on the meanings of these words/phrases.

Because generic terms used to ban things, versus classes of guns, versus common usage vary greatly and have real world impacts.  When people talk about these weapons being "illegal" it matters a lot because it could have been a legal weapon, a legal weapon modified with legal "characteristics", a straw sale, an illegal weapon imported, or the most unlikely a legal weapon grandfathered in.

I don't need to know the differences, I know all about the differences.   None of the loophole weapons are classified as Assault Weapons by the State of California.   AR and AK weapons as they were defined in the original legislation and then redefined in subsequent amendments are banned for Sale in California.

[CNS]

I am on the capacity band wagon.  Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets?  For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc.  In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants.   If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.

Why should "need" justify the existence of anything?  We are talking about a right here.  Not a need.

Ownership is the right.  No specifics about type, quantity, etc.

I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.

They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?

Honestly, given the tech available back then, I can understand them intending militias to have the same hardware available to the govt.  However, I do think there is a whole lot to be said about the "well regulated" part, and I don't think that "militia" means just any d00d who wants some cool crap for his collection and for inducing high fives with his friends.

[CNS]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Pretty obvs that this is just the escalation of the war on Christmas.

[star seed 7]

Further proof we need to rewrite the constitution so gun nuts can stop hiding behind poor wording.

[ednksu]

I am on the capacity band wagon.  Why does anyone need more than 5-6 bullets?  For those that have argued in the past that a 7th bullet may be needed, etc, well you could say that a 17th bullet may be needed too, or a 22nd, or a 50th, etc.  In reality, most home invasions and sitch's that require self protection don't include a band or army of assailants.   If you need more than 6 bullets, you need better training or shouldn't have a gun.

Why should "need" justify the existence of anything?  We are talking about a right here.  Not a need.

Ownership is the right.  No specifics about type, quantity, etc.

I don't think the founding fathers intended the "militia" to be fighting with pitchforks and broom handles.

They intended 55 round mags with parabellums?

Honestly, given the tech available back then, I can understand them intending militias to have the same hardware available to the govt.  However, I do think there is a whole lot to be said about the "well regulated" part, and I don't think that "militia" means just any d00d who wants some cool crap for his collection and for inducing high fives with his friends.

History of intention and history of practice speak to this. Because that is one of the central issue with the failure of the militia system in the US, too many dude who wanted guns and look cool (rank in local regiment) but never did anything to protect the country.

[Emo EMAW]

The murder rate has been range bound since 1900.  No evidence to suggest weapons technology contributed to or detracted from the murder rate.

[Dugout DickStone]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

[ednksu]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

Yeah I thought Cali liberals banned Christmas in their 2014 War on Christmas Putsch

[Emo EMAW]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

NPR reporter said it was a Christmas party this morning.

[CNS]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

Holiday party. 

[ednksu]

Further proof we need to rewrite the constitution so gun nuts can stop hiding behind poor wording.

They're called amendments and wording isn't the issue as much as interpretation which will always change faster than the pace at which we can update the Constitution.

[Emo EMAW]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

Holiday party.

She specifically said "Christmas."  I remember thinking that was notable.  She could have been mistaken, though. 

[sys]

Not so fast my friend!

https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/672433211604013057

obama should never have legalized guns.

[CNS]

Why did these muslims choose a Christmas party to do their deed?   Obama, I thought you said we should not be afraid of Muslim women entering the United States.

Who said it was a Christmas party?

Holiday party.

She specifically said "Christmas."  I remember thinking that was notable.  She could have been mistaken, though.

CNN:

mass shooting of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

That said, ppl call parties what they are used to associating with them.  If you tell me we are having a holiday party, I will undoubtedly refer to it as a xmas party, not out of rebellion or anything, but habit of having december holiday parties called christmas parties for my three and a half decades.  we call things what we are used to thinking of them as.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You're throwing the term "assualt rifle" around like that has any actualy meaning. It appears that you are referring to fully automatic weapons?

Yes. No need for them IMO

How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic high capacity weapons?

This is more what I am referring to. Semantics be damned KSU-W

but to answer the re-phrased question: 50%
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

A 50% reduction in mass shootings would be amazing. Hell at this point I'd even take a 30% reduction since the argument is that "criminals gonna criminal"

I'm not usually one to quibble over semantics - you specifically mentioned not needing guns that can fire 700 rounds a minute, so I naturally took you to mean banning automatic rifles. That's an important point, becuase I can't actually think of a mass shooting that involved an automatic rifle. I have seen a lot of people who seem to assume that an "AR-15" means "automatic" and can spray bullets everywhere.

So anyway, if you want to talk about magazines, it is true that at least some mass shootings involved magazines that held over 10 bullets. But are you really going to tell me that those shootings wouldn't have occurred if we had a law that limited magazines to 10 bullets or less? Or that fewer people would have been shot? That's rank speculation at best. It's not hard to swap a magazine, and if you're really set on killing a bunch of people to the point where you would bring a "high capacity" magazine, I would think you could just as easily practice swapping the damned thing out. So in summary, it just seems like a rather pointless gun control measure.

I'm not interested in getting into an Edna-level slap fight over it, though.

[sys]

4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.

this is stupid and lazy.  the nra isn't a moneyed interest.  they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country.  the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.

[DQ12]

4th amendment doesn't have a huge lobby that could lose a lot of money if it's changed/ignored.

this is stupid and lazy.  the nra isn't a moneyed interest.  they have money because gun ownership is something that is important to a relatively large number of people in this country.  the money is following the opinion, not the other way around.

the NRA receives significant funding from the firearm industry

[star seed 7]

Well gun manufacturers are pretty moneyed and they love the hell out of fear mongering

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

That said, ppl call parties what they are used to associating with them.  If you tell me we are having a holiday party, I will undoubtedly refer to it as a xmas party, not out of rebellion or anything, but habit of having december holiday parties called christmas parties for my three and a half decades.  we call things what we are used to thinking of them as.

I would add that I'm not sure you can necessarily rely upon how a journalist characterizes the party. Journalists change words all the time. Christmas becomes holiday, "illegal" immigrant becomes "undocumented," etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if at least some people in the department were calling it a Christmas Party. I suppose that might have been enough to become the target of their Jihad. But the primary motivation appears to be the Jihad itself.