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

[Nexus]

While it is very likely the two are members of a terrorist cell, it is premature to conclude that this incident was purely an act of terror. Your very own link indicates it is possible it was a reaction to his workplace environment. I think it is too early to jump to conclusions about the motivation behind this horrendous act.

You're denial of the obvious has reached absurd levels now that its known the wife had pledged support for ISIS. For someone so open minded about possibilities before making a judgment about motive, you certainly don't show that caution anytime the victim is black and you immediately assume racism motivated the suspect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you confuse rational thinking and politics your arguments make sense. These weren't Syrian refugees and they may have targeted his workplace because Karl's a dick and steals his food (or some other dumb reason).

You have a president one week removed from trying to tell people ISIS isn't coming with refugees and don't be afraid of women and children who's now standing up saying "wait and see" it could be workplace violence rather than terrorism. While pushing gun control as if this shooting is the same as any other shooting when it likely has more in common with the Boston Marathon bombing.

So gun control wouldn't have helped?

Here is a DHS "vetted" woman from the middle east who came here, armed herself, took up kitchen bomb making as a hobby, was part of a plot that shot and killed a bunch of people, and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Commiting the crime with a state government employee who I assume was screened at some point. Yet, the White House's position is it wouldn't happen with the people actually coming from ISIS controlled territory. It doesn't take a lot to convince voters that Obama's position is not sound.

Why in the flip would ISIS spend 24 months to squeeze a single person through the refugee program when they can more easily get nationals to go to their side?

Certainly more terrorists will be created by forcing people to live in refugee camps for years. And it seems like pure cowardice to condemn Syrians to living in camps because some people are afraid that a terrorist may come through the gate.

We all like to say the left is great at loosing elections they should win. I have a feeling, a couple more of these types of events and Obama won't be standing next to many candidates in the next election cycle.

A couple more? We had 1 in 355 mass shootings this year involve what appears to be foreign inspired terrorism.

 

[laughing dog]

While it is very likely the two are members of a terrorist cell, it is premature to conclude that this incident was purely an act of terror. Your very own link indicates it is possible it was a reaction to his workplace environment. I think it is too early to jump to conclusions about the motivation behind this horrendous act.

You're denial of the obvious has reached absurd levels now that its known the wife had pledged support for ISIS.

And that automatically means this was a planned terrorist attack? Sorry, while that is very plausible conclusion, I would prefer some more concrete evidence.

For someone so open minded about possibilities before making a judgment about motive, you certainly don't show that caution anytime the victim is black and you immediately assume racism motivated the suspect.

That is simply untrue. But it does explain the poor reasoning in your posts in this thread.

 

[Ford]

The president wants this to be workplace violence. But it's not. It's a terrorist cell. Workplace violence would fit into his political push to use Executive Orders to curb gun rights. ISIS in the US looses his party political points and strengthens his opponents position on the Syrian refugee issue. In that, ISIS may infiltrate the US with the refugees.

How does a US citizen committing an act of terror strengthen his opponents' position on the Syrian refugee issue? I get it from the irrational fear mongering point of view, but do you feel there's a way that his opponents' positions are actually legitimately strengthened?

The irrational fear mongering is all that is needed.

Now that it has been reported the attackers "pledged allegiance to ISIS" (though ISIS has still not claimed them as their own) all bets are off. The horse done left and the barn door is closed.

We live in a country where the nanosecond any politician mentions gun control after an even like this, the right wing goes out of their way to point out that only a tiny fraction of guns are ever used in this matter, so any extra effort on our part to reduce gun violence would be horribly unfair and perhaps even unconstitutional.

What's that? The shooter is Muslim? Holy crap we've got a Muslim down at the corner store...do you think maybe he's a terrorist too? What's that? Yeah, only a tiny fraction of Muslims ever participate in terrorism? How's that statistic gonna help you when Ahmed decides to blow YOU up? Better arm yourselves, citizens...we're at war!!!




We over react as a matter of course here in 'Merica, so unless Barack Obama changes his middle name to Harold, puts on his camo hunting vest and vows to "smoke 'em out of their holes" and bombs Iraq, he'll be painted as weak on terrorism, and the paint will stick.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, you're saying that he should cower back and say nothing because his political opponents will twist anything he says into an attack on hi? They'll do that anyways. Letting them set the agenda doesn't help him in any way.

 

[ZiprHead]

It was reported that the gunman had a heated discussion on religion and politics with a Jewish co-worker the day before. The co-worker is one of the dead.

Fuck, I have those discussions all the time.

Dammit! It was good to know you. What flowers would you like at your funeral?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're denial of the obvious has reached absurd levels now that its known the wife had pledged support for ISIS.

And that automatically means this was a planned terrorist attack? Sorry, while that is very plausible conclusion, I would prefer some more concrete evidence.

Ya, it's sort of like if someone tells the leader of the Abortion Doctors Must Die movement that he'll kill abortion doctors for him and then he goes off and kills a bunch of abortion doctors the next day. We don't know why he did it. It could have been a road rage incident.

 

[maxparrish]

How does a US citizen committing an act of terror strengthen his opponents' position on the Syrian refugee issue? I get it from the irrational fear mongering point of view, but do you feel there's a way that his opponents' positions are actually legitimately strengthened?

The irrational fear mongering is all that is needed.

Now that it has been reported the attackers "pledged allegiance to ISIS" (though ISIS has still not claimed them as their own) all bets are off. The horse done left and the barn door is closed.

We live in a country where the nanosecond any politician mentions gun control after an even like this, the right wing goes out of their way to point out that only a tiny fraction of guns are ever used in this matter, so any extra effort on our part to reduce gun violence would be horribly unfair and perhaps even unconstitutional. ...

There is a need for rationality, including the acknowledgement of real and legitimate fears AND the avoidance of hysteria over those who don't agree that most control would do anything to mitigate this, or other, public attacks. And what is NOT rational is the anti-gun hysterics of H Clinton and others who repeatedly scream irrelevant nonsense.

Here are the facts and lessons yet to be learned:

1) One shooter was a native born, the other was from Qatar with roots in Pakistan. Both shooter's family roots are from the mid-east and both were devout Muslims.

LESSON: Therefore, it is likely that the continued immigration of Muslims (especially from the Middle East) increases the likelihood of domestic terrorism. Not that this is news (ask France and Belgium, etc.).

2) It is likely that there are other ISIS endorsed or allied cells in the US, so this will not be the last event.

LESSON: Enhanced or improved monitoring of the Muslim community (e.g. as was conducted in NYC) may improve the chances of detaining would-be terrorists before they strike.

3) There is no evidence that additional federal gun control would have changed the outcome. Some of the guns taken violate California limits on magazines, a dozen pipe bombs violated ATF enforced laws, etc. And in violation of California law, the rifles were bought by another and given to them. Despite repeated challenges, no advocate of "common-sense" gun control as been able to EVEN SUGGEST, let alone prove, how their bromides would have made a difference.

LESSON: Encourage Clinton (et. al.) to cease the irrational gun hate, and the vulgar, needless and polarizing demagoguery over gun control. She is intelligent enough to know she is embracing the shameless Harry Reid rule, and its time for good and honest people to reject it.

4) The west is now at war with ISIS. And as in any war, the aim is to destroy the enemy.

LESSON: Time for Obama to cease the denial. A global coalition using unrelenting and overwhelming force to annihilate ISIS is long overdue. Such action would put ISIS on the defensive and focus their resources on mere survival. It would likely blunt some potential attacks in Europe or even the Americas.

 

[ksen]

If you confuse rational thinking and politics your arguments make sense. These weren't Syrian refugees and they may have targeted his workplace because Karl's a dick and steals his food (or some other dumb reason).

You have a president one week removed from trying to tell people ISIS isn't coming with refugees and don't be afraid of women and children who's now standing up saying "wait and see" it could be workplace violence rather than terrorism. While pushing gun control as if this shooting is the same as any other shooting when it likely has more in common with the Boston Marathon bombing.

Here is a DHS "vetted" woman from the middle east who came here, armed herself, took up kitchen bomb making as a hobby, was part of a plot that shot and killed a bunch of people, and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Commiting the crime with a state government employee who I assume was screened at some point. Yet, the White House's position is it wouldn't happen with the people actually coming from ISIS controlled territory. It doesn't take a lot to convince voters that Obama's position is not sound.

We all like to say the left is great at loosing elections they should win. I have a feeling, a couple more of these types of events and Obama won't be standing next to many candidates in the next election cycle.

The DHS is not the PreCrime division from Minority Report. People who are vetted and allowed into the country may one day turn out to be violent killers, even if they were polite and law-abiding when they immigrated. Nobody has any control over that, and it isn't a uniquely middle eastern problem. If this is an argument against allowing Syrian refugees into the US, it works for any country that has potentially violent people in it--in other words, any country.

we obviously need to stop newborn infants from entering the country through all of our hospitals since you never know which one will eventually snap and commit some terrorist outrage.

 

[laughing dog]

And that automatically means this was a planned terrorist attack? Sorry, while that is very plausible conclusion, I would prefer some more concrete evidence.

Ya, it's sort of like if someone tells the leader of the Abortion Doctors Must Die movement that he'll kill abortion doctors for him and then he goes off and kills a bunch of abortion doctors the next day. We don't know why he did it. It could have been a road rage incident.

Nah, it is nothing like that. Maybe you should lay off the kool-aid for awhile.

 

[PyramidHead]

The DHS is not the PreCrime division from Minority Report. People who are vetted and allowed into the country may one day turn out to be violent killers, even if they were polite and law-abiding when they immigrated. Nobody has any control over that, and it isn't a uniquely middle eastern problem. If this is an argument against allowing Syrian refugees into the US, it works for any country that has potentially violent people in it--in other words, any country.

we obviously need to stop newborn infants from entering the country through all of our hospitals since you never know which one will eventually snap and commit some terrorist outrage.

Or worse yet, become a gangbanger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking as an outsider I will offer my 2 bob's worth
1. Guns seem too easy to get. I cannot understand why?
2. In general I am astounded at how you yanks seem to hate each other. Your 1st recourse, instead of your last, seems to be a gun. Ignoring incidents like San Bernardino where foreigners seem to be involved.

San Bernardino is almost certainly an Islamist terror cell that went off prematurely. No gun control would have worked, they would have foreign sources of weapons.

 

[ksen]

we obviously need to stop newborn infants from entering the country through all of our hospitals since you never know which one will eventually snap and commit some terrorist outrage.

Or worse yet, become a gangbanger.

my god, you're right!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a gang problem driven by drug prohibition similar to what happened during our alcohol prohibition phase. There are lots of gun suicides.

Exactly. Going after guns is going after a symptom, not the problem.

The rest of the country is actually safe and has violence levels on par or below most developed countries. Property crime and violent crimes not involving death tend to be low also. So no, we don't settle disputes with guns. Criminals settle their disputes with guns because they can't use the legal system.

Seconded this. I think it's the very existence of the guns that keeps the other crimes low--in areas without effective weapons the tough guy can dominate the victims. After it's over they call the cops but nothing will happen--it's pretty close to a zero-risk crime. In the US that victim might turn the tables on the criminal.

I've not been able to find any correlation between volume and access to guns and gun crimes. Areas with easy access to guns and areas where guns are prohibited either have gun crime or don't. The correlation tends to be economic and drug route related rather than due to the inanimate object used in the crime.

There is a pattern--high crime in areas with strict gun laws. I think this mostly works the other way around, though--the gun laws are a reaction to the crime rather than the cause of it.

 

[fromderinside]

There is a need for rationality, including the acknowledgement of real and legitimate fears AND the avoidance of hysteria over those who don't agree that most control would do anything to mitigate this, or other, public attacks. And what is NOT rational is the anti-gun hysterics of H Clinton and others who repeatedly scream irrelevant nonsense.

Here are the facts and lessons yet to be learned:

1) One shooter was a native born, the other was from Qatar with roots in Pakistan. Both shooter's family roots are from the mid-east and both were devout Muslims.
These, surprise, are facts.

LESSON: Therefore, it is likely that the continued immigration of Muslims (especially from the Middle East) increases the likelihood of domestic terrorism. Not that this is news (ask France and Belgium, etc.).
There is no support presented for this other than the two are muslim believers. Extending from the, not mentioned, immigration of one Muslim from Pakistan (not the middle east at all) increases the likelihood of anything other than they bore a child in the US. All of that wasn't presented, but, which if it were still doesn't rise to the level of evidence so remains only phenomenal notation they might increase the number of people born in the US. As for the mention of European events the perps were for the most part native born citizens which doesn't support importation of terrorist Muslim thinking.

2) It is likely that there are other ISIS endorsed or allied cells in the US, so this will not be the last event.
Rational conjecture, irrational conclusion. Since time always passes there will always be more events.

LESSON: Enhanced or improved monitoring of the Muslim community (e.g. as was conducted in NYC) may improve the chances of detaining would-be terrorists before they strike.
Since the above conjecture isn't really argument, there is no lesson. Certainly there is no lesson about whether improved monitoring of anything including the Muslim community will (yes, maxparrish weasel worded with 'may', but in context, it carries the meaning of doing) or the probability of detention of would be terrorists prior to striking.

3) There is no evidence that additional federal gun control would have changed the outcome. Some of the guns taken violate California limits on magazines, a dozen pipe bombs violated ATF enforced laws, etc. And in violation of California law, the rifles were bought by another and given to them. Despite repeated challenges, no advocate of "common-sense" gun control as been able to EVEN SUGGEST, let alone prove, how their bromides would have made a difference. OK a hand waving countering claimed hand waving. No evidence presented suggesting either the existence gun laws or violation of them has effects beyond some political feeling. See evidence for reducing mass killings by regulation below under re: evidence

LESSON: Encourage Clinton (et. al.) to cease the irrational gun hate, and the vulgar, needless and polarizing demagoguery over gun control. She is intelligent enough to know she is embracing the shameless Harry Reid rule, and its time for good and honest people to reject it. WTF. A political screed on a political thread worth every bit of the evidence supporting it, none, as ususal.

4) The west is now at war with ISIS. And as in any war, the aim is to destroy the enemy. BS is neither rational nor evidence and, as usual it is untrue. See comment below with 'correction' as to whom we are fighting. see re correction

LESSON: Time for Obama to cease the denial. A global coalition using unrelenting and overwhelming force to annihilate ISIS is long overdue. Such action would put ISIS on the defensive and focus their resources on mere survival. It would likely blunt some potential attacks in Europe or even the Americas. Ah, the final political point based on all that evidence -can you say chirp....... chirp......chirp........ sigh - presented above by maxparrish.

Grade: Two fails. Your presentation is neither rational nor is it empirically based.

I'm going into your post to show you why. (see bolded above)

Re evidence: gun control reduces rates of mass killings. How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings http://I'm a advocate of common sen... does impact the occurrence of mass shootings

Re correction: We are at war with extremists and loonies motivated by loonies. The loonies we are focusing on at the moment is Daesh and their internetwork of hate and motivation for those looking for ways to 'get even' or otherwise exact vengeance upon something or someone.

Final comment on that which needs no counter comment since it falls on its own lack of substance.

People who are stressed are likely to hate which forms the basis of a need for mental health services and effective government. A failed government will select and point to other failed governments and groups as sources for the failures of their government. Please note what the media are calling the targets of our anger. Instead of getting their own houses in order they commonly do take arms against those failed governments producing successes (oh irony) like our recent ventures into Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate IMHO (not evidence, but, surely as compelling as anything suggesting some evil like out of control Islam).

We are at least functional enough to be slowly getting to the point where we are able to control those within our borders through better mental services, better laws about those who are likely to act out, and better laws about access to lethal weapons by those who are in such states.

We've amended the first amendment to the point where it's sometimes seen as not being a right at all in order to constrain those who run amouk to the benefit all most everyone else in our society. It is time to put aside our land based fondness of individual right to kill things in the interest of moving into the age we are in where most people are dependent on others more than they are free agents. Societies change. As they change adjustments need be made to accommodate the society as it is rather than as it is in some dreamland like speederfundus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The president wants this to be workplace violence. But it's not. It's a terrorist cell. Workplace violence would fit into his political push to use Executive Orders to curb gun rights. ISIS in the US looses his party political points and strengthens his opponents position on the Syrian refugee issue. In that, ISIS may infiltrate the US with the refugees.

His anger, frustration, sadness, thoughts, prayers...whatever are political mechanisms to use events to further his party's chances at winning elections.

He picked this one wrong. San Bernardino shooting: Attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say

While it is very likely the two are members of a terrorist cell, it is premature to conclude that this incident was purely an act of terror. Your very own link indicates it is possible it was a reaction to his workplace environment. I think it is too early to jump to conclusions about the motivation behind this horrendous act.

This likely was a terror cell that went off prematurely because he got mad at his coworkers. In the big picture it probably was a good thing--whatever they were really planning was probably a lot worse.

- - - Updated - - -

A couple more? We had 1 in 355 mass shootings this year involve what appears to be foreign inspired terrorism.

But how many of those "mass shootings" were simply criminals shooting criminals?

Mass shootings with innocent victims make the news--and there's nowhere near 355 cases that made the news.

- - - Updated - - -

Re evidence: gun control reduces rates of mass killings. How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings http://I'm a advocate of common sen... does impact the occurrence of mass shootings

Look more carefully--their gun "ban" is undetectable in the overall killing rate.

 

[KeepTalking]

If you confuse rational thinking and politics your arguments make sense.

My arguments make sense because they reflect reality.

These weren't Syrian refugees and they may have targeted his workplace because Karl's a dick and steals his food (or some other dumb reason).

More likely because he argued with a co-worker over religion, and he decided violence was the ultimate answer. It is also likely that he would eventually have attacked some other target had the workplace argument not occurred, in which case it would have been pure terrorism. But we are not dealing with that hypothetical, we are dealing with what really happened.

You have a president one week removed from trying to tell people ISIS isn't coming with refugees and don't be afraid of women and children who's now standing up saying "wait and see" it could be workplace violence rather than terrorism. While pushing gun control as if this shooting is the same as any other shooting when it likely has more in common with the Boston Marathon bombing.

His argument the week before still stands. These attackers did not come in with Syrian refugees, and if anything, it should give you a small inkling of exactly what those refugees are fleeing from in their country of origin.

Here is a DHS "vetted" woman from the middle east who came here, armed herself, took up kitchen bomb making as a hobby, was part of a plot that shot and killed a bunch of people, and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Commiting the crime with a state government employee who I assume was screened at some point. Yet, the White House's position is it wouldn't happen with the people actually coming from ISIS controlled territory. It doesn't take a lot to convince voters that Obama's position is not sound.

Those things have nothing to do with Obama's position on Syrian refugees, because these two were not Syrian refugees. It doesn't take much to convince voters of anything, but that is because those voters are, by and large, idiots. The question becomes, why does someone who seems to be an otherwise intelligent individual also buy into that bullshit?

We all like to say the left is great at loosing elections they should win. I have a feeling, a couple more of these types of events and Obama won't be standing next to many candidates in the next election cycle.

I will note that this is coming from someone who was just castigating me for confusing rational thinking and politics. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A couple more? We had 1 in 355 mass shootings this year involve what appears to be foreign inspired terrorism.

But how many of those "mass shootings" were simply criminals shooting criminals?

Are such things common, rival gangs going gangbusters?

Mass shootings with innocent victims make the news--and there's nowhere near 355 cases that made the news.

And you are probably correct. According to this site, the number of attacks that led to the deaths of at least 4 people (not including the shooter) is 29 for 2015. 1 was gang related, 2 likely terror related. The rest, 132 not so lucky people who were murdered. So yeah, definitely not nearly as bad as 355. I think I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that there have only been 26 mass murders in 2015.

If anything, this seems to imply that Americans need better arms training so that those 355 mass shootings lead to more victims.

 

[maxparrish]

There is a need for rationality, including the acknowledgement of real and legitimate fears AND the avoidance of hysteria over those who don't agree that most control would do anything to mitigate this, or other, public attacks. And what is NOT rational is the anti-gun hysterics of H Clinton and others who repeatedly scream irrelevant nonsense.

Here are the facts and lessons yet to be learned:

1) One shooter was a native born, the other was from Qatar with roots in Pakistan. Both shooter's family roots are from the mid-east and both were devout Muslims.

LESSON: Therefore, it is likely that the continued immigration of Muslims (especially from the Middle East) increases the likelihood of domestic terrorism. Not that this is news (ask France and Belgium, etc.).

There is no support presented for this other than the two are muslim believers. Extending from the, not mentioned, immigration of one Muslim from Pakistan (not the middle east at all) increases the likelihood of anything other than they bore a child in the US. All of that wasn't presented, but, which if it were still doesn't rise to the level of evidence so remains only phenomenal notation they might increase the number of people born in the US. As for the mention of European events the perps were for the most part native born citizens which doesn't support importation of terrorist Muslim thinking.

Nope...

FACT: Their heritage was directly (or indirectly) from the greater middle east. The were devout Muslim believers. And as is becoming increasingly acknowledged, the wife (Tashfee Malik) pledged her allegiance (called a "bayat") to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and was likely the couple's radicalizing element. (NYT "In the days leading up to the shooting, the couple took several steps to delete their electronic information, in an apparent effort to cover their tracks, officials said. Those efforts have led authorities to believe that the shooting was premeditated."). ...

FACT: This is a template seen before in radicalized Islam. These Islam fueled terrorists are usually the progeny of Greater Middle-East Muslims, and either are from immigrant or the native second generation Muslim immigrant stock. The Islamic motivated multiple murder attacks in Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, Boston, and San Bernardino are just the most notorious of recent attacks. Less well known are the routine acts of domestic torture and murder in the name of Allah. Domestic stories such as: A Muslim man shoots his daughter because she is lesbian and offends the Koran. A Muslim targets and beheads two Coptic Christian immigrants. A 19 year college student is shot "in revenge" for Muslim deaths overseas. A Muslim guns down his Christian father in Church, while praising Allah. A Muslim father kills an American because the American converted his daughter to Christianity. A Muslim strangles his 25 year old daughter in an honor killing...etc. etc...etc...

LESSON: As the Muslim population continues to increase in the United States the pool from which the radicals recruit or join grows larger. And as the pool grows larger, the number of attacks will increase. As between 5 - 25% of Muslims in America already believe that violence in defense of Islam is justified, what else would you expect?

So more Muslim immigration means that, sooner or later, more Americans will eventually die. Unless there is some important benefit to importing Muslims, such immigration should end (and it would be wise to deport non-citizens as well).

...Since the above conjecture isn't really argument, there is no lesson. Certainly there is no lesson about whether improved monitoring of anything including the Muslim community will (yes, maxparrish weasel worded with 'may', but in context, it carries the meaning of doing) or the probability of detention of would be terrorists prior to striking.

FACT: Previous attacks were largely or totally unanticipated and from came from inadequately monitored Muslim communities.
LESSON: Increased monitoring may improve detection and prevention of such acts, and therefore should be pursued.

There is no compelling reason not to try increased surveillance, unless you are of a mind to protect terrorists from premature exposure. Is that your intention?

Grade: Two fails. Your presentation is neither rational nor is it empirically based.

I'm going into your post to show you why. (see bolded above)

Re evidence: gun control reduces rates of mass killings. How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings http://I'm a advocate of common sen... does impact the occurrence of mass shootings

Irrelevant. Australian styled gun control, which included a form of confiscation, is not what Americans normally consider "common-sense" gun control. We are speaking of those proposals that have been offered in the American context.

Moreover, we are not speaking of mass killings in general. We are speaking of the kind of event that happened in San Bernardino, which Clinton (etc.) exploited with an irrelevant fit.

You, like so many others, have failed to show that the controls being touted would have had an effect.

Re correction: We are at war with extremists and loonies motivated by loonies. The loonies we are focusing on at the moment is Daesh and their internetwork of hate and motivation for those looking for ways to 'get even' or otherwise exact vengeance upon something or someone.

Oh yes, the war wherein Obama (et. al.) thinks that hashtags and acronym changes (along with climate change conferences) is "fighting back"...LOL.

The remainder of your post is largely incoherent.

 

[Nexus]

Irrelevant. Australian styled gun control, which included a form of confiscation, is not what Americans normally consider "common-sense" gun control. We are speaking of those proposals that have been offered in the American context.

The murder rate remained constant in Australia for seven years after the mass confiscations. That fact alone disproves anti-gun nut assertions that less restrictive gun laws cause higher murder rates