14 Killed in Shooting in San Bernardino (2 Viewers)

[shader]

Don't most folks think if these 2 were on the phone with the actual ISIS group overseas that our government would know about it? I would like to think we have at least that limited protection layer that if someone was actually dumb enough to communicate over cell phones that we would intercept that.

So it's likely they did not act in direct connection with ISIS. But what is more disturbing is that they were probably inspired to act by a lot of what they saw on TV and internet media outlets as of late. I don't think this is proof of ISIS cells but the lone wolf analogy is probably better.

I doubt they communicate over the phone.

 

[jonessed]

Don't most folks think if these 2 were on the phone with the actual ISIS group overseas that our government would know about it? I would like to think we have at least that limited protection layer that if someone was actually dumb enough to communicate over cell phones that we would intercept that.

So it's likely they did not act in direct connection with ISIS. But what is more disturbing is that they were probably inspired to act by a lot of what they saw on TV and internet media outlets as of late. I don't think this is proof of ISIS cells but the lone wolf analogy is probably better.

They don't need a phone. In the aftermath of the Paris attacks there was a fair amount of information on how the terrorists were able to communicate secretly.

It sounds like these two were under the radar so its possible there was a communication channel (or they met people when they were in Saudi Arabia).

 

[shader]

Basic steps toward gun safety, is what Obama is saying. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Why can't automatic and semi automatic weapons be outlawed? Do people need automatic weapons to kill deer?

Do you realize what percentage of weapons are semi-auto? Do you understand the difference between auto and semi-auto? You want everyone to be down to bolt-action rifles and revolvers?

What percentage of the current hundreds of millions of guns do you expect to get off the streets? Do you project a gun war to be more or less successful than the drug war?

Icon I'm sure you are right. I know very little about the gun laws or gun statistics. I am not prepared to argue the point. I guess I'm confused as to why people need to own them and why anyone would buy them if they don't have bad intentions. Is a pistol for protection not enough? I'm Honestly asking as I just don't understand the mindset.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are done with handguns, by people with prior criminal records and are gang related.

So an obvious step to lower the probability would be to legalize drugs which removes a huge source of revenue for the gangs and also frees up the courts and prisons to put away violent offenders for much longer.

But now the buzzwords are "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" which if you remove all the "long guns" from the population you would barely see a dent in gun crimes.

So why are the "long guns" the focus here? I think there has to be another reason. Doesn't make any sense to focus on rifles and shotguns first if you're trying to reduce gun crimes.

I'd go even more basic than that. I'd say the obvious first step would be lift the ban on CDC gun violence studies so we can figure out what the next steps should be. But here we are.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.

The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

 

[jonessed]

Basic steps toward gun safety, is what Obama is saying. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Why can't automatic and semi automatic weapons be outlawed? Do people need automatic weapons to kill deer?

Do you realize what percentage of weapons are semi-auto? Do you understand the difference between auto and semi-auto? You want everyone to be down to bolt-action rifles and revolvers?

What percentage of the current hundreds of millions of guns do you expect to get off the streets? Do you project a gun war to be more or less successful than the drug war?

Icon I'm sure you are right. I know very little about the gun laws or gun statistics. I am not prepared to argue the point. I guess I'm confused as to why people need to own them and why anyone would buy them if they don't have bad intentions. Is a pistol for protection not enough? I'm Honestly asking as I just don't understand the mindset.

You don't understand why people own rifles?

 

[[icon]]

Latest issue of the Islamic State's Magazine... openly praising the Paris attacks and many other items

Nice article on having 2, 3, or 4 wives in there too.

interesting look at how the see the near future from their perspective, and how they feel like they have the West on the ropes:

And all the while, the Caliphate country they fight and die to support has continued to grow and mature. The mujāhidīn enjoy fighting the most, but they have proved to be remarkably good at adapting to the needs of social requirements and government, too. Having established their country and set a new order in place within the Middle East, what happens over the next few years is more up to the Islamic State than any exterior force.

The first option is that they continue to expand the borders of the Caliphate throughout the region until economic or military limitations stop them and they afterwards consolidate their positions. Too bad for the West, it doesn’t look like such limitations exist for the Caliphate.

The second option is that they goad the West into launching an all-out ground attack, thereby setting the scene for the final battle between Muslims and the crusaders prophesized to be held at Dābiq in Syria, by conducting an operation overseas that is so destructive that America and its allies will have no alternative but to send in an army. This would have to be something on the same scale, if not bigger, than 9/11. Then again, I’m just guessing. American “hawks” may very well come to Dābiq on their own without the Islamic State needing to blow up any dirty bombs in Manhattan.

In a piece published in The Independent on 21st June titled “We cannot destroy ISIS, so we will have to learn to live with it,” former counter-terrorism chief for MI6 Richard Barrett wrote, “Iraq and Syria will not return to how they were, and whatever it ends up calling itself, a new entity has emerged that will remain in some form. Currently that entity is aggressive, intolerant and uncompromising, but it is a truth that for all its dystopian features, ISIS offers those living under its rule better governance in some respects than they received from the state before it took over. Corruption is far less prevalent, and justice, albeit brutal, is swift and more evenly applied.”

The Islamic State’s rapid consolidation and shrewd governance of its territories has no doubt caught world leaders by as much surprise as its sudden blitz and capture of Mosul. If you’d told a politician in New York in June 2014 that by October 2015 the Islamic State would have achieved what they have, he’d have laughed in your face. It’s fair to say that the same politician isn’t laughing today.

 

[jonessed]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

 

[shader]

I can't believe the "workplace violence" narrative is still out there. These guys had IEDs, pipe bombs, strapped GoPros to their chest, wore masks and had assault rifles.

Cmon

 

[doowain]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

Because more people are there. This was one specific conference room.

 

[Max Power]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

That number sounds crazy high.

 

[Soulfly3]

The mission was clearly botched... There had to be tons more to it, as mentioned above.

I think this is the reason it's not being called terrorism yet... They know it is, but they want to really dive into the depths of how big it really was, and likely work to cover it... or uncover it... however they plan on doing it

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.

The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Exactly, I really have not paid attention to a lot of the details. If the guy worked here and was more of an outsider type thing...this is going to move from terrorism to Psychology Today which is probably a better use of time than worrying about ISIS 24/7.

 

[jonessed]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

Because more people are there. This was one specific conference room.

They killed 14 people and tried to use an IED to kill more. It doesn't matter how big the city is, they just needed a crowded, confined area. A large party in a conference room seems like a decent place.

 

[[icon]]

Basic steps toward gun safety, is what Obama is saying. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Why can't automatic and semi automatic weapons be outlawed? Do people need automatic weapons to kill deer?

Do you realize what percentage of weapons are semi-auto? Do you understand the difference between auto and semi-auto? You want everyone to be down to bolt-action rifles and revolvers?

What percentage of the current hundreds of millions of guns do you expect to get off the streets? Do you project a gun war to be more or less successful than the drug war?

Icon I'm sure you are right. I know very little about the gun laws or gun statistics. I am not prepared to argue the point. I guess I'm confused as to why people need to own them and why anyone would buy them if they don't have bad intentions. Is a pistol for protection not enough? I'm Honestly asking as I just don't understand the mindset.

No problem, I understand the confusion from an "outsider's" perspective. From a self-defense perspective. Yes, a pistol is fine. However most pistol's are semi-automatic. Revolvers certainly are an option, but most are "semi-Auto" as well, in the sense that each time you pull the trigger, one round is fired. There's not really many feasible options for handguns that aren't semi-auto.

 

[doowain]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

That number sounds crazy high.

Washington Post

They classify a mass shooting as "4 dead including shooter".

 

[Willie Neslon]

I can't believe the "workplace violence" narrative is still out there. These guys had IEDs, pipe bombs, strapped GoPros to their chest, wore masks and had assault rifles.

Cmon

He shot up a conference room hosting an event with people he worked with, didn't he?

 

[jonessed]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

That number sounds crazy high.

Depends on the definition. The official numbers are much, much lower. Some of the calculations thrown out by a variety of groups define mass shooting as more than two people getting shot. That wraps in a ton of gang violence.

 

[[icon]]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Basic steps toward gun safety, is what Obama is saying. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Why can't automatic and semi automatic weapons be outlawed? Do people need automatic weapons to kill deer?

Do you realize what percentage of weapons are semi-auto? Do you understand the difference between auto and semi-auto? You want everyone to be down to bolt-action rifles and revolvers?

What percentage of the current hundreds of millions of guns do you expect to get off the streets? Do you project a gun war to be more or less successful than the drug war?

Icon I'm sure you are right. I know very little about the gun laws or gun statistics. I am not prepared to argue the point. I guess I'm confused as to why people need to own them and why anyone would buy them if they don't have bad intentions. Is a pistol for protection not enough? I'm Honestly asking as I just don't understand the mindset.

Is a Corolla enough to get you from point A to point B? Yes it is but still most folks want a lot more.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

Because more people are there. This was one specific conference room.

They killed 14 people and tried to use an IED to kill more. It doesn't matter how big the city is, they just needed a crowded, confined area. A large party in a conference room seems like a decent place.

They were his co-workers. They weren't random infidels.

 

[Max Power]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

That number sounds crazy high.

Washington Post

They classify a mass shooting as "4 dead including shooter".

good link. The mass shootings by day calendar is pretty interesting. Crazy comes out on the weekend...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It can be both. "If I'm going to kill a bunch of infidels anyway, why not have my baklava and eat it too? I'll get the jerks at work."

 

[[icon]]

Icon I'm sure you are right. I know very little about the gun laws or gun statistics. I am not prepared to argue the point. I guess I'm confused as to why people need to own them and why anyone would buy them if they don't have bad intentions. Is a pistol for protection not enough? I'm Honestly asking as I just don't understand the mindset.

Is a Corolla enough to get you from point A to point B? Yes it is but still most folks want a lot more.

Corrolla will get you from Point A to B. But you can't carry a load of mulch with it. You can't traverse trails or hard to reach places with it.

It's not even so much that people WANT more... it that certain weapons aren't functional for certain tasks/hobbies/etc.

But yeah, not a bad analogy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are done with handguns, by people with prior criminal records and are gang related.

So an obvious step to lower the probability would be to legalize drugs which removes a huge source of revenue for the gangs and also frees up the courts and prisons to put away violent offenders for much longer.

But now the buzzwords are "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" which if you remove all the "long guns" from the population you would barely see a dent in gun crimes.

So why are the "long guns" the focus here? I think there has to be another reason. Doesn't make any sense to focus on rifles and shotguns first if you're trying to reduce gun crimes.

I'd go even more basic than that. I'd say the obvious first step would be lift the ban on CDC gun violence studies so we can figure out what the next steps should be. But here we are.

I didn't even know about that, that's crazy. Agreed that would be a great first step. Still we do know that the majority are gang related crimes with handguns, I would say this just adds more evidence that there is a specific agenda to rifles and high capacity magazines and not just reducing gun crime. Releasing the CDC studies would probably just make the "assault rifle" agenda look more ridiculous.

I seriously doubt that the GOP would be blocking CDC studies of gun violence if the likely result would be beneficial to those who want to protect the right to own assault rifles. I suspect they're blocking them because the likely result will be that some form of gun safety measures opposed by the NRA (trigger locks, storage requirements, enhanced background checks and waiting periods, etc.) would be beneficial.

 

[whoknew]

I don't see why it matters if they label it terrorism.

It matters because the more the government can label terrorism, the more fear there is, and the greater the "War on Terrorism" becomes.

The more they label terrorism, the more money they get, and the fewer civil liberties we have.

Easy tin hat, nobody is coming for your guns...yet

I don't own a gun. No desire to own a gun.

But how do you think we get things like the Patriot Act? I mean - I'm not making this stuff up. You can read all about the police and govt abuses in the name of the War on Terror. And how that is tied to the War on Drugs.

I'm not sure who could've possibly foreseen this:

Emergency powers given to French police could be extended indefinitely, despite warnings from human rights groups.

France's parliament has already voted to extend the country's state of emergency following the Paris attacks for three months, giving the police powers to keep people in their homes without trial, search the homes of people without a warrant from a judge and block any website deemed a problem.

A draft law, seen by news agency Agence France-Presse, could extend France's state of emergency beyond the current three month extension.

 

[tom22406]

Does the way the police responded in this case change any minds regarding the use of military style equipment for the cops?

Seems to me like it certainly did help them and saved a few lives in the process of those responding.

 

[timschochet]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

Im sure it's good advice. But what are the odds that either of you will ever be in a position to defend yourself from a mass shooting or a terrorist attack?

 

[snogger]

Uggghh. Not to go to far off topic but... If what is being reported on CNN that he was "Apparently Radicalized" it will only give Trump more staying power..

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

Im sure it's good advice. But what are the odds that either of you will ever be in a position to defend yourself from a mass shooting or a terrorist attack?

About the same as the people in that conference room? I am not a statistician but someone here can figure it out.

 

[ATC1]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Please take it seriously, and I would recommend if you do carry at all times to take more self defense classes then the requirement in obtaining your CCW.

 

[whoknew]

Does the way the police responded in this case change any minds regarding the use of military style equipment for the cops?

Seems to me like it certainly did help them and saved a few lives in the process of those responding.

Of course not. There are certain LIMITED circumstances where high powered weaponry is appropriate for police. That's VERY rare. This may have been one of those instances - I'm not sure.

The problem is the police pull it out for everything. In most big cities, SWAT serve warrants. All the time. Its absurd.

ETA: I'm not sure that the military equipment stopped anything. Did it?

 

[kface]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

Because more people are there. This was one specific conference room.

They killed 14 people and tried to use an IED to kill more. It doesn't matter how big the city is, they just needed a crowded, confined area. A large party in a conference room seems like a decent place.

Is it not just as plausible he hated everyone at work and they were planning on killing them? Being radicalized may just provide them the comfort that they are going to a better place when they die

 

[Soulfly3]

@Conflicts 5m5 minutes ago
BREAKING: Farook was in touch with more than one international terrorism subjects

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As for me, I don't carry, concealed or otherwise now that I am not required to do so. My feeling or belief is that by the time I could bring a firearm to bear under circumstances where it would be warranted that it would already be too late to do so. This is a personal judgment. I do not try to dissuade those of differing opinions on the subject. I do note that my job has me in court with convicted capital offenders and first degree murderers on a regular basis and that I have been the subject of specific threats from them, their friends and/or families. That said I generally do not see the world, or my day to day life as a particularly dangerous environment.

 

[jonessed]

Looks like a half & half to me. He felt like an outsider at work. Maybe got into a bunch of spats there. Things weren't going well. At the same time all these attacks happening around the world. Maybe started watching the terror recruitment videos online. Felt like could finally be a part of something rather than be excluded. Found a kindred spirit who stoked the idea of an attack. One final straw and decides now is the time. Shoots up his office in the name of terrorism. If he didn't look like he did, have the name he did or believe in the religion he did, this would "just" be a mass, workplace shooting.

I think the reason you don't want to publicly label stuff like this "islamic terrorism" is because of people precisely like these who carried out the attack. People who may be on the fence. People feeling they are not part of society. You start framing it an us vs. them issue and sooner than later there are going to be a lot more of "them". Call it mass murder. We don't need to (in a few people's eyes) glorify it.

Lots of good logic here except...The wife. That's the problem with a lot of these theories: the wife doesn't fit. She doesn't fit unless it was a completely pre planned attack.

I'm sure to some extent there were plans. I don't know what that has to do with anything. So it was not a spontaneous spat that instigated a mass shooting? OK.The terror attacks we've seen in the past usually involve high profile or public targets. This was a conference room and specific people who the guy worked with. Seems to me like his anger was directed at his workplace and not random infidels. They could have driven a little bit west and staged an attack in a huge city.

Why does the size of the city matter?

Because more people are there. This was one specific conference room.

They killed 14 people and tried to use an IED to kill more. It doesn't matter how big the city is, they just needed a crowded, confined area. A large party in a conference room seems like a decent place.

Is it not just as plausible he hated everyone at work and they were planning on killing them? Being radicalized may just provide them the comfort that they are going to a better place when they die

Not really, no.

 

[Soulfly3]

100% terrorism.

Guy on CNN right now describing how the IED failed to detonate due to a design flaw... was set to explode remotely.

100% planned and deliberate... plus what I posted above

 

[whoknew]

Does the way the police responded in this case change any minds regarding the use of military style equipment for the cops?

Seems to me like it certainly did help them and saved a few lives in the process of those responding.

Of course not. There are certain LIMITED circumstances where high powered weaponry is appropriate for police. That's VERY rare. This may have been one of those instances - I'm not sure.

The problem is the police pull it out for everything. In most big cities, SWAT serve warrants. All the time. Its absurd.

ETA: I'm not sure that the military equipment stopped anything. Did it?

Also to add - why were any of the cops dressed in camo? From what were they hiding? And even if hiding was appropriate, how the hell does camo help in San Bernardino?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Please take it seriously, and I would recommend if you do carry at all times to take more self defense classes then the requirement in obtaining your CCW.

In my view 99.99% of police are inadequately trained for emergency situations. Obviously then I do not believe that a one day training is adequate to the task, but that again is only one person's opinion. Of course I have formed my opinion after being intimately involved in training LEO for a substantial portion of my career.

 

[tom22406]

Does the way the police responded in this case change any minds regarding the use of military style equipment for the cops?

Seems to me like it certainly did help them and saved a few lives in the process of those responding.

Of course not. There are certain LIMITED circumstances where high powered weaponry is appropriate for police. That's VERY rare. This may have been one of those instances - I'm not sure.

The problem is the police pull it out for everything. In most big cities, SWAT serve warrants. All the time. Its absurd.

ETA: I'm not sure that the military equipment stopped anything. Did it?

I'm not saying it stopped anything I'm saying it may have saved some lives to those responding.

I agree that these need to be used in certain circumstances and not every time,that was very clear in the Ferguson case.

 

[ATC1]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

Im sure it's good advice. But what are the odds that either of you will ever be in a position to defend yourself from a mass shooting or a terrorist attack?

Less then the chances of being in a mass shooting or a terrorist attack. The main point is to be a threat of resistance to criminals. We have argued this before, but it seems the targets for mass shootings are in gun free zones I am of the [SIZE=10.5pt]belief that it is not coincidence. If there was a removal of gun free zones I really hope people take on the responsibility seriously. [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]We know that it would be under the scrutiny of every gun control lobbyist.[/SIZE]

 

[Amused to Death]

So I turned it back to MSNBC.

Just as Fox has guests on focused on Islamic terror, MSNBC has guests on focused on gun control. A guy from Think Progress was just on, very frustrated with Republican responses (thoughts and prayers) and noting how much in contributions each guy received from the NRA. He points out that a majority of Americans are in favor of more background checks and getting assault rifles off the street, yet it can't be done because the NRA prevents it. And to those who say we shouldn't discuss this right now, this guy says angrily "why not? Why not?"

And do you really think gun control would have prevented today?

Personally? I doubt it.

I'm skeptical that any kind of gun control would ever prevent these mass shootings. I do think that background checks without limitation would reduce gun violence in general.

Certainly you shouldn't be on the no fly list and be able to legally get a firearm

Except for that whole 2nd Amendment thing

Shame of it is,there are politicians (and candidates) that feel its ok to compromise our 4th amendment in the name of safety but not the 2nd. Difference is there are contributions to be had defending the 2nd.

 

[[icon]]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

Im sure it's good advice. But what are the odds that either of you will ever be in a position to defend yourself from a mass shooting or a terrorist attack?

Odds of terrorist attack? Absurdly low, but increasing by the day.

Odds of some other sort of event? Very low but more likely. There are literally thousands of instances where concealed carry holders have saved themselves or others. Are there bad instances? Sure. But they are generally a drop in the bucket compared to positive outcomes.

The odds are very low that my home will be demolished via earthquake. Should I not bother to carry that sort of coverage?

Completely ignoring, for a moment, that it is my right as an American citizen, of course

 

[sho nuff]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Get certified... learn the laws... remember it's a last resort. Then, don't stop there. be sure to go to the range at LEAST once a month initially, then every month or two after that to keep your knowledge and handling skills fresh. A license does you no good if you're unable to safely carry and use the firearm.

Im sure it's good advice. But what are the odds that either of you will ever be in a position to defend yourself from a mass shooting or a terrorist attack?

About the same as the people in that conference room? I am not a statistician but someone here can figure it out.

Going to be strapped at the office Christmas party?

 

[eoMMan]

As for me, I don't carry, concealed or otherwise now that I am not required to do so. My feeling or belief is that by the time I could bring a firearm to bear under circumstances where it would be warranted that it would already be too late to do so. This is a personal judgment. I do not try to dissuade those of differing opinions on the subject. I do note that my job has me in court with convicted capital offenders and first degree murderers on a regular basis and that I have been the subject of specific threats from them, their friends and/or families. That said I generally do not see the world, or my day to day life as a particularly dangerous environment.

Wait a minute.....you're a Zow alias?!?!

 

[boots11234]

It does make me sick seeing the media yesterday noting there was a planned parenthood 1 1/2 miles away from the building. Sick how they were wishing it was some crazy christian white male.

I also thought the President looked like an idiot saying we dont know it was terrorism this morning. By then he knew there was a bomb making factory at the house. I'm worried about that neighbor who said he saw multiple males entering and leaving the house in the days leading up to this. We need to find those men.

 

[[icon]]

Scheduling my CCW class today. We can open carry here in Ohio as well.

This is happening every day it seems now. 351 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

I'll be prepared.

Please take it seriously, and I would recommend if you do carry at all times to take more self defense classes then the requirement in obtaining your CCW.

In my view 99.99% of police are inadequately trained for emergency situations. Obviously then I do not believe that a one day training is adequate to the task, but that again is only one person's opinion. Of course I have formed my opinion after being intimately involved in training LEO for a substantial portion of my career.

I would concur. However, I would take a fighting chance over no chance any day.

 

[sho nuff]

Does the way the police responded in this case change any minds regarding the use of military style equipment for the cops?

Seems to me like it certainly did help them and saved a few lives in the process of those responding.

Of course not. There are certain LIMITED circumstances where high powered weaponry is appropriate for police. That's VERY rare. This may have been one of those instances - I'm not sure.

The problem is the police pull it out for everything. In most big cities, SWAT serve warrants. All the time. Its absurd.

ETA: I'm not sure that the military equipment stopped anything. Did it?

Also to add - why were any of the cops dressed in camo? From what were they hiding? And even if hiding was appropriate, how the hell does camo help in San Bernardino?

probably just what their gear was...surplus camo used for such uniforms? no idea

To stand out from attackers that were wearing all black and body armor.

 

[Max Power]

@Conflicts 5m5 minutes ago
BREAKING: Farook was in touch with more than one international terrorism subjects

This bothers me. CNN has been running a banner most of the morning saying this guy was "not on the police's radar".

He was on someone's radar. Why not share this info with local law enforcement?