Reports of at Least 20 Victims Amid Active Shooting Incident in San Bernardino

[bilby]

...
So there are two possible solutions to this problem:
1) Get people in the city to all be nicer to each other, eliminate the root causes of urban blight, poverty, criminality, and other related social ills, and work to promote a more egalitarian society where every single person in the community respects the rights, safety and property of their neighbors, AND create a system of checks that ensures that visitors to the community or miscreant members OF the community do not have an opportunity to deviate too far from acceptable standards of behavior
2) Pass sensible gun control laws that make it harder for criminals, assholes or lunatics to obtain and use firearms.

One of those things, we actually know how to do. Care to guess which one?

Based on past history, I'd say they don't know how to do either and will continue to accomplish nothing. If you look at polls of likely voters and the issues they actually care about most of them are included in 1) Jobs, education, welfare, police, etc.. Fewer people agree with 2) because sensible to some is complete ban. Which is a non-starter. The answer they get back depends on the question they ask. A majority supports backgrounds checks, a majority doesn't support registration. Up to 25 percent of recent gun sales are to new gun owners.

I grew up in the country and live in the city now. But it's clearly blacks that are having the problem. truth-out.org Why counting mass shootings is a bad way to understand gun violence in america

I'd start by a much more focused approach on those communities with something like the Cure Violence programs http://cureviolence.org/. Followed closely with the Justice department working with local law enforcement to figure out how to keep the approximately 1000-1200 people killed by police this year; from being killed by the police.

But, they'll continue to beat the drums of ineffective policies, maybe even pass an assault weapon ban like Clinton the First in the 90s. In the mean time 1000s more will die due to draconian policing, a foolish drug war, poverty, and terrorism. Because doing something is the politicans answer to a problem. Doing something effective isn't.

I think "sensible to some is a complete ban" is a straw man.

No OECD nation has a complete ban on private ownership of guns. It's not sensible, and nobody is proposing it - even in places with far fewer people who want to own guns than in the USA.

A complete ban makes a great boogeyman for the NRA to wave around and maximise their support base; but it's not a realistic prospect even if the gun control lobby were able to enact any laws they wanted.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

...
So there are two possible solutions to this problem:
1) Get people in the city to all be nicer to each other, eliminate the root causes of urban blight, poverty, criminality, and other related social ills, and work to promote a more egalitarian society where every single person in the community respects the rights, safety and property of their neighbors, AND create a system of checks that ensures that visitors to the community or miscreant members OF the community do not have an opportunity to deviate too far from acceptable standards of behavior
2) Pass sensible gun control laws that make it harder for criminals, assholes or lunatics to obtain and use firearms.

One of those things, we actually know how to do. Care to guess which one?

Based on past history, I'd say they don't know how to do either and will continue to accomplish nothing.

That's just it, we know how to pass common sense regulatory laws. We've done it before with cars, trucks, taxis, restaurant equipment, buildings, aircraft, certain types of power tools, etc. Things the government examines and determines are potentially dangerous if misused, they make it difficult to own them and they go out of their way to make sure the people who own them are mentally competent and fit to operate them safely.

There is one and ONLY one reason we we haven't done the same thing with firearms. That reason is the NRA.

 

[maxparrish]

Based on past history, I'd say they don't know how to do either and will continue to accomplish nothing.

That's just it, we know how to pass common sense regulatory laws. We've done it before with cars, trucks, taxis, restaurant equipment, buildings, aircraft, certain types of power tools, etc. Things the government examines and determines are potentially dangerous if misused, they make it difficult to own them and they go out of their way to make sure the people who own them are mentally competent and fit to operate them safely.

There is one and ONLY one reason we we haven't done the same thing with firearms. That reason is the NRA.

In pursuing the last several pages of posts I noticed someones obsession with guns, and it's not the gun nuts. Mind you, how is it that a thread on the domestic terrorism spawned by Islamist ISIS loyal radicals (the one's that Barry and Hillary refuse to call Islamist) ends up being another platform for the the left's only real hostility...that of an object (guns?).

It's been established that "common sense" gun control would have done little or nothing to mitigate this tragedy, some can't you folks let it go? Can't you face issues RELEVANT to this event?

May I suggest you create another thread on your idée fixe, and learn to actually address the causes, suspects, and meaning of this event?

Just a thought to all the "anti-gun" nuts.

 

[iolo]

I lived in the country in my teens, and even had a shot-gun for a while, but killing animals seemed to me a pretty boring activity compared with snooker, rugby, beer and girls, and I soon packed it in. A lot of my Cardiganshire relatives went in for it (poaching it mainly) if they were short on protein, but mostly gave it up when they could afford better. I think there is all the difference in the world between an antiquated custom and a gun-obsession, and I'd be inclined to wonder who profited from building the obsession up in the US.

 

[ksen]

Let me get this straight, regulating muslims because a couple of them killed and wounded around two dozen people is a good idea but regulating guns that've killed tens of thousands of people is a bad idea?

sounds legit

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Let me get this straight, regulating muslims because a couple of them killed and wounded around two dozen people is a good idea but regulating guns that've killed tens of thousands of people is a bad idea?

sounds legit

Guns don't kill people, Muslims kill people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Based on past history, I'd say they don't know how to do either and will continue to accomplish nothing.

That's just it, we know how to pass common sense regulatory laws. We've done it before with cars, trucks, taxis, restaurant equipment, buildings, aircraft, certain types of power tools, etc. Things the government examines and determines are potentially dangerous if misused, they make it difficult to own them and they go out of their way to make sure the people who own them are mentally competent and fit to operate them safely.

There is one and ONLY one reason we we haven't done the same thing with firearms. That reason is the NRA.

No, it's because they don't propose common-sense gun laws. It's always the gun-banner's wishes in disguise.

And even with your examples they don't always do it anything like right. Consider buildings: All too often the codes are based on what is common without any regard for other ways of doing it. For example, in most places underground houses can't exist because of fire codes that require all bedrooms to have an outside window suitable for egress (but with no regard for what's below--the window may not actually be suitable for the purpose) and for a firefighter in full gear to enter.

What you really need is a good fire escape of some kind but windows aren't the only means of accomplishing this.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Loren, the building codes are written by professional organizations. Just because you may not be up to speed, doesn't mean they aren't.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153557451811210

 

[crazyfingers]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153557451811210

I like that

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's been established that "common sense" gun control would have done little or nothing to mitigate this tragedy, some can't you folks let it go? Can't you face issues RELEVANT to this event?

It IS a relevant issue. It is not the MOST relevant in this case, but it remains a factor regardless, and is a factor that is being discussed.

I take it you are about to introduce OTHER relevant factors that could also be discussed?

May I suggest you create another thread on your idée fixe, and learn to actually address the causes, suspects, and meaning of this event?

Oh... you're NOT going to suggest other relevant factors, just complain about the fact that we're not talking about them.

Right then, thanks for being so helpful.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's just it, we know how to pass common sense regulatory laws. We've done it before with cars, trucks, taxis, restaurant equipment, buildings, aircraft, certain types of power tools, etc. Things the government examines and determines are potentially dangerous if misused, they make it difficult to own them and they go out of their way to make sure the people who own them are mentally competent and fit to operate them safely.

There is one and ONLY one reason we we haven't done the same thing with firearms. That reason is the NRA.

No, it's because they don't propose common-sense gun laws. It's always the gun-banner's wishes in disguise...

... is what the NRA says EVERY SINGLE TIME. And they have been wrong, every single time.

Even MODEST attempts at reform have been blocked this way. NRA members have been issuing death threats and sales embargos on manufacturers of safety deices designed to keep guns from being used by someone other than their legitimate owner. Why? Because of the fear that the legislatures of some states could REQUIRE guns to have those safety devices installed.

Think about that: it's not even a matter of regulating guns, not even a matter of legislation. Thy prevented the development of SAFER GUNS purely because of the imagined POTENTIAL for a ban on unsafe guns!

Consider buildings: All too often the codes are based on what is common without any regard for other ways of doing it. For example, in most places underground houses can't exist because of fire codes that require all bedrooms to have an outside window suitable for egress (but with no regard for what's below--the window may not actually be suitable for the purpose) and for a firefighter in full gear to enter.

And this is the part where you get to explain to me how building codes are actually just cleverly disguised attempts to ban buildings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, the building codes are written by professional organizations. Just because you may not be up to speed, doesn't mean they aren't.

You miss the point--I'm not saying the building codes are unsafe. I'm saying they're inflexible in the face of new or unusual ways of doing things.

(Now, if you want unsafe, look at the government center we built here some years back. I would really hate to be in that building in case of fire--I would expect to see a large number of deaths on the main staircase in any panic evacuation.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's because they don't propose common-sense gun laws. It's always the gun-banner's wishes in disguise...

... is what the NRA says EVERY SINGLE TIME. And they have been wrong, every single time.

Even MODEST attempts at reform have been blocked this way. NRA members have been issuing death threats and sales embargos on manufacturers of safety deices designed to keep guns from being used by someone other than their legitimate owner. Why? Because of the fear that the legislatures of some states could REQUIRE guns to have those safety devices installed.

It's not merely a fear, but a reality. One state has a law on the books requiring them a certain number of years after the first one hits the market. Oops--while there is one on the market it doesn't work very well and is prone to denying the authorized user his gun. Mandating a safety device that doesn't work well is not a good idea!

Or consider the jetliner with a bullet hole in the cockpit--because the rules required the use of a poorly designed safety. The pilot's finger was nowhere near the trigger, the stupidly designed safety device actually fired the bullet.