Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon 238 Replies latest social current

  • James Mixon
    James Mixon

    DesirousOfChange: Yes if ISIS is responsible or try to take credit for this, we need

    do something and your idea sounds great. But I'm afraid it's home grown.

    I will say this again S.B is a tough city, the wild wild west.

    One guy that was interviewed by the news station" we have shootings out here all

    the time, but nothing like what we had today".

  • James Mixon
    James Mixon
    One of the shooters a female..
  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot

    Evidently two suspects were killed in a shoot out.

    DesirousOfChange, someone once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Bombing Mecca will radicalize 100% of Muslims to the same level as ISIS instead of maybe 10%.

    Also, ISIS has been blowing up Muslim monuments. They would blow up Mecca if they could. They consider those monuments to be idolatrous.

  • Khaleesi
    This happened about 45 miles away from where I live.... some people are speculating it looks staged & fake & a distraction to something else bigger.... i find it hard to believe the female shooter had an AK 47 weapon.. when watching the local news it look to me that it was too calm for 3 shooters being on the run after a shooting of 14 dead, there were no street closures or fwys...
  • freemindfade
    Isis shmisis. That's just a hot world for radical Muslims. The shooter was Sayed Farook. Enough said.
  • Simon

    Here's the idiocy:

    If ISIS did this then people will want to go to war

    If ISIS didn't do this then those same people will want NOTHING DONE

    Yep. they will continue to fight for the right of people who do this to be able to buy the weapons to do this.

    I wonder how the pro-gun lobby will deal with the cognitive dissonance of having to argue that terrorists should have the right to buy guns vs saying that there should be controls on dangerous weapons?

    If it is a muslim then it's obviously going to be classed as a workplace incident or road rage.

    This is the worst nightmare for America - attacks by Americans in America with easy access to military weapons.

    Great job on the "make sure everyone can get guns" policy.

  • freemindfade

    Simon did the Paris shooters have the right to guns??

    I agree gun violence in America and gun availability are related. However any kind of rampage shooting or terrorism is not a gun control issue. For every rampage gun death in America 2000 other people are killed in other shootings. Rampage shooting are the same as acts of terror. Guns available or not they are going to get what they need to harm people.

    Say you out and out ban guns in America tomorrow. There are still as man guns as people here. That's not gonna disappear with "gun control" it someone wants to preach the anti gun lobby they should not use rampage shootings. These are either deranged people or terrorists. Restrict guns fine. Idiots like the Paris shooters will find a way.

    I have no problem saying gun violence in this country is related to gun availability. However. Rampage and terrorist are not a gun issue. If they had ar15's in California that's no small task. The Paris shootings had zero to do with gun laws. The day to day violence in America ok, this type of thing is not that. It's designed for terrorism not because guns

  • Simon
    did the Paris shooters have the right to guns??

    No, they were illegal.

    Whatever the threat in Europe, guns generally have to be obtained and smuggled in which limits the supply.

    How does America handle terrorism when they can just buy their weapons locally? Is "we'll supply you with all your terrorism needs" really a good plan?

    Walking it back is possible - restrict supply and eventually they become less available. This has been proven. The idea that "nothing can be done (so may as well keep selling guns)" as though it makes no difference is simply propaganda.

  • Simon

    This may shine a light on the contradiction of US gun control (or lack of) and the confused policies.

    If the guy did this because he's a dick ... then that's OK (just wring hands, but do nothing).

    If he did it because his god is a dick ... then that's not OK and we need to do something ... right?

    Why the difference? Surely what is done matters more than the motivation for it? If he is a Muslim and did this because he is a Muslim then it's the worst thing ever but if he just happens to be a Muslim and it's just "some incident at work" then oh dear ... nothing to see here.

    We can't predict either but the one thing we could do is not make access to powerful weapons quite so easy. And the amazing thing is that regardless of the motivations, this addresses the actual acts by removing the means.

    But we're talking about a country that couldn't actually do anything after primary school kids are massacred. No doubt there will be more talk, more nonsense about how more guns would make things better and more of nothing being done.

  • talesin
    Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. Canadians just have to deal with the influx of guns that is run up the "Blue Steel Highway" (that's I-95). Keep your stinkin' guns - we don't want em! (JUST KIDDING!, but seriously, get a better grip on your weapons).

Share this