San Bernardino terror attacks and presidential tiptoeing

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I think the reason might be that labeling it as terrorism would demand taking action whilst labeling it as a "workplace related" allows the government to carry on with business as usual.

[Gaidin]

I think the reason might be that labeling it as terrorism would demand taking action whilst labeling it as a "workplace related" allows the government to carry on with business as usual.

We were already putting an expeditionary force on the ground before this happened. What's next? Dropping a nuke?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

We were already putting an expeditionary force on the ground before this happened. What's next? Dropping a nuke?

Ah yes the mythical expeditionary force... One week they were supposed to act as human shields against Russian bombs for some Islamic militiants, next week they were supposed to train the Kurds. What are those guys up to now? They sure got a busy schedule!

So in your mind there is no room for escalation between sending an expeditionary force (whatever they are up to) and dropping a nuke? Interesting! You're a MacArthur fan perhaps? Hmm I don't know, maybe do like France and actually try to help the Russians drops some bombs on the IS for a change?

[Gaidin]

Ah yes the mythical expeditionary force... One week they were supposed to act as human shields against Russian bombs for some Islamic militiants, next week they were supposed to train the Kurds. What are those guys up to now? They sure got a busy schedule!

So in your mind there is no room for escalation between sending an expeditionary force (whatever they are up to) and dropping a nuke? Interesting! You're a MacArthur fan perhaps? Hmm I don't know, maybe do like France and actually try to help the Russians drops some bombs on the IS for a change?

We've been dropping bombs for at least 18 months. I see where you've spent that time!

[Phier]

So I'm gone a week, Islamic terrorists kill in my country and the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a gun control topic? Pathetic.

Radical Islam is not a mental health issue.

[Copperknickers II]

So I'm gone a week, Islamic terrorists kill in my country and the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a gun control topic? Pathetic.

There was also a terrorist attack in the UK a couple of days ago. Nobody was killed, because the guy only had a knife, due to British gun control laws. If this isn't a gun control topic I don't know what is. I guess you're going to come out with the usual rubbish that guns saved the lives of dozens of people in the USA who would have been killed if they didn't have their gun to defend their home. Or maybe you'll try your recent tactic of blaming ethnic minorities and claiming guns are perfectly safe in the hands of white people. But the fact is, anyone who believes that they need a gun for their own protection (against criminals, or against a potential tyrannical government) is indirectly leading to the accidental deaths of hundreds of people per year in the USA, and hundreds more deliberate deaths that were entirely preventable.

Your 'right' to bear arms takes away someone else's right to life, and if you think your right to a false sense of security beats the right to safety then you need to take a hard look at yourself. It has now got to the point where America's gun tragedy is not just a sorrowful reflection on our cousins across the pond, it's a real human rights crisis that requires intervention from the international community to defend the vulnerable.

[Derpy Hooves]

There was also a terrorist attack in the UK a couple of days ago. Nobody was killed, because the guy only had a knife, due to British gun control laws. If this isn't a gun control topic I don't know what is. I guess you're going to come out with the usual rubbish that guns saved the lives of dozens of people in the USA who would have been killed if they didn't have their gun to defend their home. Or maybe you'll try your recent tactic of blaming ethnic minorities and claiming guns are perfectly safe in the hands of white people. But the fact is, anyone who believes that they need a gun for their own protection (against criminals, or against a potential tyrannical government) is indirectly leading to the accidental deaths of hundreds of people per year in the USA, and hundreds more deliberate deaths that were entirely preventable.

Your 'right' to bear arms takes away someone else's right to life, and if you think your right to a false sense of security beats the right to safety then you need to take a hard look at yourself. It has now got to the point where America's gun tragedy is not just a sorrowful reflection on our cousins across the pond, it's a real human rights crisis that requires intervention from the international community to defend the vulnerable.

And your lack of a 'right' to bear arms takes away someone else's right to life.

Also, which gun control measures would have prevented this incident?

[Copperknickers II]

And your lack of a 'right' to bear arms takes away someone else's right to life.

Explain?

Also, which gun control measures would have prevented this incident?

A ban on semi-automatic assault weapons would be a good start. Proper background checks would probably have raised cause for concern, the couple did have a huge stash of weapons and bombs after all.

EDIT: also, it seems now the visa which the wife used to enter the USA used a false address. They could have checked that for a start.

[Derpy Hooves]

A ban on semi-automatic assault weapons would be a good start. Proper background checks would probably have raised cause for concern, the couple did have a huge stash of weapons and bombs after all.

EDIT: also, it seems now the visa which the wife used to enter the USA used a false address. They could have checked that for a start.

And what effect would that ban have on gun violence? Extremely little. I can't recall if they used semi-automatic assault weapons, but it would have made very little difference if they had a different gun.
And how would the background check pick up on them building bombs?

[Enros]

Also, which gun control measures would have prevented this incident?

British style gun control where basically noone is allowed to own any guns would have forced the perpetrators to use knives.

How do I know this? Because it just happened in Britain.

And your lack of a 'right' to bear arms takes away someone else's right to life.

The murder rate in California in 2012 was 5.0 per 100,000. 69% of them were commited using guns.

The murder rate in the UK was 1.0 per 100,000. Just 2.4% of those murders in those were commited using guns.

Banning guns is how we protect people's right to life, not the other way around.

[Derpy Hooves]

British style gun control where basically noone is allowed to own any guns would have forced the perpetrators to use knives.

How do I know this? Because it just happened in Britain.

The murder rate in California in 2012 was 5.0 per 100,000. 69% of them were commited using guns.

The murder rate in the UK was 1.0 per 100,000. Just 2.4% of those murders in those were commited using guns.

Banning guns is how we protect people's right to life, not the other way around.

Britain is also an island that does not share borders with non first world countries that is in the middle of a cartel war. Britain is also more homogenous than the US. There are so many things that are different between the US and the UK, that distilling it down to just US has less control than UK which is why the murder rate is higher in the US is asinine.

[Phier]

British style gun control where basically noone is allowed to own any guns would have forced the perpetrators to use knives.

How do I know this? Because it just happened in Britain.

The murder rate in California in 2012 was 5.0 per 100,000. 69% of them were commited using guns.

The murder rate in the UK was 1.0 per 100,000. Just 2.4% of those murders in those were commited using guns.

Banning guns is how we protect people's right to life, not the other way around.

The naivete of the gun control side is just horrific at times. Please ask these questions of yourself, google, then form opinions.

[snuggans]

So I'm gone a week, Islamic terrorists kill in my country and the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a gun control topic? Pathetic.

Radical Islam is not a mental health issue.

did you count thanksgiving day in that timeframe? cause there was also that planned parenthood shooting.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, mental check ups could.

[Gaidin]

Again, mental check ups could.

Convince me a worthwhile number of mental conditions in the DSM-5 would lead to this and are any of the merchants' business and I'll even consider someone's medical records yours if the court hasn't ruled it such individually.

A ban on semi-automatic assault weapons would be a good start. Proper background checks would probably have raised cause for concern, the couple did have a huge stash of weapons and bombs after all.

You sound like the useless New York Times front page editorial. Do you know how little violence is committed with "assault weapons"? Good god do some research.

[PointOfViewGun]

Convince me a worthwhile number of mental conditions in the DSM-5 would lead to this and are any of the merchants' business and I'll even consider someone's medical records yours if the court hasn't ruled it such individually.

I take it you never heard of mental checks for gun licenses? I'm gonna leave coming up with the specifics to actual doctors. Is this any of merchant's business? Not sure why you'd ask that. It's the state's business and merchants needs to operate under the regulations set up by the state. Also, commas are not your enemy.

You sound like the useless New York Times front page editorial. Do you know how little violence is committed with "assault weapons"? Good god do some research.

Why don't you tell us? Since you're supposed to have that knowledge to make that statement.

[Gaidin]

I take it you never heard of mental checks for gun licenses? I'm gonna leave coming up with the specifics to actual doctors. Is this any of merchant's business? Not sure why you'd ask that. It's the state's business and merchants needs to operate under the regulations set up by the state. Also, commas are not your enemy.

Most I'd ever concede is the same as a criminal background check. "No he doesn't have a relevant diagnosis."

Basically, doesn't mean jack about what he actually is or what he's going to do with the gun. But hell, perfectly legal to buy. But you know what, medical record ain't your god damned business. Only time you now or ever get more is if it's a court ordered diagnosis. Get. Over. It.

Why don't you tell us? Since you're supposed to have that knowledge to make that statement.

Even the Huffington god damned Post is calling an assault weapons ban useless. Why? Because it ignores the vast majority of gun violence. One of the key points is that gun control groups have stopped trying to focus efforts on cosmetic efforts like this. This is what I call research. Research Coppernickers is too lazy to do. Instead he wants to scream "THAT GUN LOOKS SCARY!!! LET'S GET RID OF IT!" Really? The horror!

[PointOfViewGun]

Most I'd ever concede is the same as a criminal background check. "No he doesn't have a relevant diagnosis."

Basically, doesn't mean jack about what he actually is or what he's going to do with the gun. But hell, perfectly legal to buy. But you know what, medical record ain't your god damned business. Only time you now or ever get more is if it's a court ordered diagnosis. Get. Over. It.

Many countries require mental check ups for purchasing a gun or getting/renewing a license. Mental health record, just like criminal record, is the business of the state. There are laws that require psychiatrist to notify authorities if their patients pose a danger to others. I hope you know that. You might need to tell the state to get over it as well...

Even the Huffington god damned Post is calling an assault weapons ban useless. Why? Because it ignores the vast majority of gun violence. One of the key points is that gun control groups have stopped trying to focus efforts on cosmetic efforts like this. This is what I call research. Research Coppernickers is too lazy to do. Instead he wants to scream "THAT GUN LOOKS SCARY!!! LET'S GET RID OF IT!" Really? The horror!

I asked for a number. I didn't get a number.

[Enros]

Britain is also an island that does not share borders with non first world countries that is in the middle of a cartel war.

Actually the flow of guns is from the USA to Mexico, with 70% of guns used in the Mexican drug war originating in the USA.

Britain is also more homogenous than the US.

You're claiming the country that had a civil war until 1998 is more homogenous than the USA? It's the other way around, the USA is more homogenous than the UK. The UK still has violence between its different peoples, American only has one people. Other parts of the UK want to leave by democracy. Remind me which US states think they are a disctinct nation and want to secede? Depending on who you ask, the UK contains 4 to 6 different nations.

There are so many things that are different between the US and the UK, that distilling it down to just US has less control than UK which is why the murder rate is higher in the US is asinine.

Notice how homogenity has no relationship with murder rate. Spain is not a homogenous country at all, it is not a nation-state, it has a history continuing to today of inter-ethnic violence. It has the same murder rate as extremely homogenous Germany. Belgium has two different official languages spoken in the two halves of the country, yet it has less murder than homogenous Norway.

The naivete of the gun control side is just horrific at times. Please ask these questions of yourself, google, then form opinions.

All the 1997 law did was move pistols from highly regulated to completely illegal. Owning a pistol already required a licence, a good reason to own one (self defence not counting), a background check, a documented safe space to store the gun and all of the other bells and whistles.

[Roma_Victrix]

Remind me which US states think they are a disctinct nation and want to secede?

Texas is the answer you are looking for. Yet that's the only state that lately has toyed with the idea and has a significant following. It was an independent republic fighting against Mexico before it was brought into the Union, btw. In either case, the US already fought its own Civil War over the issue of secession among the Southern states, which formed the Confederacy. If you ask me, Southern culture has an ingrained sense of pride and feeling of belonging to the old Confederacy, with some Southerners being as passionate about their heritage as any Scotsman (even though the latter have no problems being identified as Brits, just as Americans from the Southern states have no problem being identified as Americans).