Suspects Dead In San Bernardino Mass Shooting, But Much Remains Unclear

The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings are dead, but that's about all we know so far this morning.

San Bernardino Shoot SUV Cops

As the day dawns in California, the one thing we know for sure is that the two suspects in the shootings in San Bernardino, California that resulted in at least fourteen dead and seventeen injured are dead and that they were husband and wife, beyond that there’s much that remains unclear, including the extent to which the incident may have been tied to or influenced by international terrorism:

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — Police officers here spent the night combing the scene of a shooting rampage that left 14 dead and 17 others wounded and scouring the backgrounds of two suspects, a husband and wife who died in a shootout, looking for reasons behind the attack.

The suspects, identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27 — armed with .223-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns and wearing masks and body armor — are believed to have opened fire at a social services center here around 11 a.m. on Wednesday, unleashing the deadliest mass shooting since the assault on an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., nearly three years ago.

Mr. Farook had been at a holiday party at the center for the county health department, where he worked as an environmental inspector. He soon left in anger after a dispute of some sort, Chief Jarrod Burguan of the San Bernardino Police Department said, only to return alongside Ms. Malik. Hours later, the couple were killed during a shootout with police.

“We don’t have the motive at this time,” Chief Burguan said. “We have not ruled out terrorism.” David Bowdich, assistant director of the F.B.I’s Los Angeles office, said the agency was investigating several possible motives, including terrorism.

“There had to be some degree of planning that went into this,” Chief Burguan said. “I don’t think they just ran home and put on these tactical clothes.”

Through the night, investigators scoured at least three sites looking for clues: the scene of the shooting at the Inland Regional Center, a sprawling facility that provides services for thousands of people with disabilities where the holiday party was held; the site about two miles away where the couple died in a shootout; and a townhouse in nearby Redlands.

Officers used a crane to crash through windows and the door at the small townhouse and set off controlled explosions inside the home, fearing the suspects could have left explosives behind.

Bomb squads had also disposed of explosives the suspects left behind them at the regional center. None of the victims were identified late Wednesday.

Most of the carnage unfolded in a single room of the Inland Regional Center, the police said, which was filled with people with whom Mr. Farook had a personal connection. While shots rang out, others in the building cowered and hid, sending text messages or making frantic calls.

As the suspects fled in a black sport utility vehicle, large parts of the city were paralyzed throughout the day.

Residents were told to remain indoors, and government buildings, stores, offices and at least one school were either closed or put on lockdown. Yellow school buses filled with survivors of the shooting were escorted by police vans to meet anxious relatives at a church.

Late Wednesday afternoon, dozens of heavily armed police officers in tactical gear descended on a residential neighborhood in pursuit of the attackers. Witnesses described a wild scene as dozens of officers closed in on a vehicle, with hundreds of shots fired as the people in the vehicle fought the police.

Chief Burguan said there were at least 20 officers involved in the gun battle.

The chief said that a third person had fled the scene and had been taken into custody, but that the police did not know his role, if any. A police officer was wounded in the shootout and was being treated at a hospital for injuries that were not life-threatening.

In a year repeatedly marked by such massacres, San Bernardino joined a tragic roster that includes Charleston, S.C.; Roseburg, Ore.; and Colorado Springs, where just five days earlier a gunman killed three people and wounded nine at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Investigators on Thursday were puzzling over the motives over the latest attack, and there were conflicting accounts of what had led to the shooting.

“We will go where the evidence takes us,” Mr. Bowdich said.

One senior American official said that Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and that he was not someone the bureau had been concerned about before Wednesday’s attack. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.

The fact that the shootings took place at a gathering of people that Farook had worked with for years leads one to think on the surface that this was somehow a workplace grievance related shooting of the type that we have seen many times over the years, as does the fact that Farook was apparently at the event and left after an argument with someone. However, that theory seems to fall apart both in the face of the fact that Farook not only left the event and came back armed, which would fit the pattern of past workplace violence events, but that he came back with his wife who apparently joined him in the shooting, not to mention the fact that the couple seems to have had a plan that was hatched long before Farook initially left the meeting:

ANAHEIM, Calif. — On Wednesday morning, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, left their 6-month-old daughter with Mr. Farook’s mother, telling her they were going out for a doctor’s appointment, a relative said.

By nightfall, it was clear that was a ruse, as the police said the couple spent the day carrying out a rampage at a social services center that killed at least 14 people before leading officers on a sprawling chase that ended with the two dead in a bloody gunfight in a suburban neighborhood.

Before the attack, Mr. Farook, 28, who was born in Illinois and whose parents are from Pakistan, joined colleagues at an annual holiday party for the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, where he worked for five years as an environmental inspector, officials said. He had attended the same party the year before, and he did not appear out of place.

Soon, however, he stormed out in anger. The nature of the dispute was not clear, but when he returned with his wife, 27, both of them were dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles, officials said. That level of preparation is among the factors investigators are weighing as they examine a motive for the attack.

Chief Jarrod Burguan of the San Bernardino Police Department said at a news conference that the attack did not seem to be “a spur-of-the-moment thing.”

A picture began to emerge on Wednesday night of how the couple hid their plan from even close relatives, as Mr. Farook’s brother-in-law held a news conference here in Anaheim during which he expressed sorrow for the victims and bafflement at what had driven the couple to commit such a crime.

“I have no idea why would he do that,” said the brother-in-law, Farhan Khan, who last spoke to Mr. Farook a week ago. He added: “I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.”

It was hours after Mr. Farook and his wife had left their baby with Mr. Farook’s mother, whose name was not released, that she learned there had been a shooting at his work party, said Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, which helped organize the news conference with Mr. Khan. At first, the baby’s grandmother was tense with concern about her family.

Then she received a call — her son had been named as a suspect.

Mr. Ayloush urged people not to jump to conclusions regarding a motive. “Is it work?” he said. “Rage-related? Is it mental illness? Extreme ideology?”

The authorities could not offer an answer either, with Chief Burguan saying that he was not aware of the suspects having any previous contact with law enforcement.

He added, “We have not ruled out terrorism.”

Some reports are saying that the couple had also constructed crude pipe bombs, including some devices that were left behind after the shooting and others that were thrown out of the window of their vehicle as the police chased them during the chase that would end in a shootout that killed both husband and wife. It’s unclear, though, if these devices were actually functional bombs, if they were decoys, or if they were attempts to construct a device by people who had no real idea what they were doing and which never would have gone off in any case. It’s also, obviously, unclear exactly what was motivating these two people. As I said, the workplace violence argument seems to fall apart based on the fact that Farook’s wife was involved and that they had taken obvious steps prior to the event which seemed to indicate that they knew something would be happening to them yesterday, such as leaving their young baby with Farook’s mother earlier in the day. Theoretically, I suppose, all of that could indicate a long term plan to enact revenge on co-workers for some perceived slight, but it’s pure speculation at this point to think about that and the extent to which there appears to have been a plan belies the ‘heat of passion’ situation we usually see in workplace violence, as does the fact that the shooters obviously had a plan to escape, and perhaps strike again.

This leads, logically, to the question of whether this shooting was somehow connected to international terrorism, but here again there’s not enough evidence to reach a conclusion. The only clues we have in that direction are the fact that Farook had apparently become a “more devout” Muslim in recent years and that he had traveled to Saudi Arabia where he met the woman who became his wife and brought her home with him. The fact that there appears to have been some kind of plan involved here also suggests that terrorism may have been involved, but doesn’t necessarily prove anything. There are plenty of Muslim Americans who are devout without being violent, and it’s been suggested that Farook’s trip may have been part of the hajj, the trip to Mecca that all Muslims are required to make at least once in their life. As for his wife, it’s unclear if this is a woman he had been in contact with prior to traveling to Saudi Arabia, or if perhaps this was a marriage that had been arranged by family members as is sometimes still the custom in that country, but the fact that they had a child just a few months ago would suggest that there had been a relationship between the two long before he traveled abroad.

In any case, there are a lot more questions than answers this morning about what motivated Farook and his wife to do this, and it may be some time before we get any clear answers.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Crime, National Security, Terrorism,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. PJ says:

    What’s clear is that we have a law abiding natural born citizen who was able to buy assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns, and body armor and then use them to kill 14 and wound 17 of his co-workers.

  2. JKB says:

    Well, either he went full melting pot, bringing his recent immigrant wife into his radical American militia paranoia?

    or

    He became more religious and Islamic radicalized and handlers in Saudi Arabia arranged for him to marry a radicalized woman who had training outside the observation of Western intelligence agencies. It will be interesting to hear what the Saudis have on the woman. Perhaps they were to be sleeper agents, but the work dispute triggered them?

    It’s interesting that they withheld his name until CAIR could get out in front of the story. I wonder if that was at White House insistence?

  3. Jack says:

    @PJ: And here I thought Cali outlawed Assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Hmmm, it vexes me. I am truly vexed as to how something that is ILLEGAL, can possibly be used to commit a crime in a state that received an A- on the 2014 Annual Gun Law Scorecard from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and an A- from the Brady Campaign to Stay Relevant in 2013.

    Cali, which has waiting periods, Universal Background Checks, licensing, registration–basically all of the anti gun wet dream desires when it comes to firearms–and still this happens. It’s almost like these stupid laws don’t actually do anything to prevent deranged individuals from committing their heinous act, but are simply feel good legislation to make it look like they are doing something.

    I am truly vexed, indeed.

  4. anjin-san says:

    Watch Fox, it will all become clear. The shooters were “Hell bent on Jihad” and their home was “an IED factory”…

  5. anjin-san says:

    @JKB:

    It’s interesting that they withheld his name until CAIR could get out in front of the story.

    Its interesting that you would lie about this…

  6. Guarneri says:

    Somehow I don’t think that the. Farooks, Syeddy and Tashi, were what Bammy had in mind when he was yammering about clinging to their guns and religion.

    Awkward.

  7. CSK says:

    The reports I’ve read indicate that the attack was pre-planned, and involved extensive preparation and training. It would be foolish to deny the possibility that this was a terrorist attack, and not an instance of someone suddenly going off his rocker and slaughtering co-workers. People have guns, yes–but in this case, Farook and Malik also had tactical gear and other equipment not normally associated with impulse crimes. They dropped off their baby with her grandmother, which also indicates that this wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment crime.

  8. Mu says:

    @anjin-san: Only if it turns out that while the woman was “from” Saudi-Arabia she wasn’t actually a Saudi national. Otherwise it would upset the narrative.

  9. anjin-san says:

    @Jack:

    It’s almost like these stupid laws don’t actually do anything to prevent deranged individuals from committing their heinous act

    Yea, we should probably get rid of laws against rape, burglary, extortion, arson, and human trafficking. After all, we have laws on the books, and people still commit these crimes. Lets just go full Somolia…

  10. Pch101 says:

    We need to take the fight to the homelands of these killers. When are we launching air strikes on Illinois?

  11. Guarneri says:

    @anjin-san:

    Yes, that sequence of events is incorrect (unless CAIR sprang into action behind the scenes earlier than we know) but I think you err if you discount their quick PR move. These are bad people. Media savvy bad people.

  12. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    It’s almost like these stupid laws don’t actually do anything to prevent deranged individuals

    Indeed. Our gun laws are ineffective, full of loopholes, easy to circumvent by going to another state or using a straw buyer. Clearly that means we should have no gun laws at all. That will stop all this killing.

  13. anjin-san says:

    @Guarneri:

    I’m not discounting anything, I just don’t think telling bald faced lies – yes JKB, I am taking about you – contributes anything to an already horrible situation.

  14. Modulo Myself says:

    @CSK:

    Yes, though I’m not going to be surprised if there were work issues in addition to religion. Maybe he was about to be fired for some sort of misconduct bordering on criminal, and as this tightened around them, they became fixated on how terrible this country is as they watched Islamic State propaganda videos. I guess I would be surprised if these two were actually connected to ISIS.

  15. Mikey says:

    @CSK:

    It would be foolish to deny the possibility that this was a terrorist attack, and not an instance of someone suddenly going off his rocker and slaughtering co-workers.

    Of course at this point it would be foolish to draw any firm conclusion, given how much we still don’t know.

    Two points do stick out to me, that make me think it wasn’t strictly a “generic” terrorist act. One, these were Farook’s co-workers of several years–not strangers, but people familiar enough with him that one was quoted as having asked “where’s Syed?” when he wasn’t there for a group photo. The other is the report of some sort of argument between Farook and a person or persons at the party, immediately following which Farook departed, returning shortly thereafter with his wife and attacking.

    Either way…a terrible, terrible thing, and my heart goes out to those killed and wounded, and to their families.

  16. anjin-san says:

    @CSK:

    Clearly these people were ramped up for something. The police chief is right, this did not spring up out of a vacuum.

  17. Guarneri says:

    @Jack:

    Cali has the same type of laws as Chicago. We have a saying here. A shooting a day, solved by gun laws, nay nay.

    OK, we don’t have that saying. But we do have a Mayor, and pal of HRC and Bammy, who covers up police murders of black men for political gain. He would make a grand dragon blush. When do you suppose HRC and Bammy are scheduling that all important, all healing beer summit??

  18. Modulo Myself says:

    @Guarneri:

    They’re PR mouthpieces but what are they trying to sell except the fact that the vast majority of Muslim-American citizens in this country are not going to shoot up anything? As far as I can tell, people hate CAIR because they operate on the tacit assumption that there’s some prejudice against Muslim citizens. Big deal. Grow up.

  19. Guarneri says:

    @anjin-san:

    You learn something every day. I was unaware rape, burglary, extortion, arson, and human trafficking were constitutionally protected.

    Sumbitch.

  20. Guarneri says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    They are a terrorist mouthpiece.

    Grow up.

  21. Pch101 says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    Grow up.

    Judging from what I’ve seen thus far, that’s a lot to ask.

  22. mantis says:

    @Guarneri:

    We have laws against libel and slander, yet people commit those crimes. And speech is constitutionally protected.

  23. Jack says:

    That will teach those infidels to refer to it as a Christmas Party and serve pork!–This message brought to you by the state of California.

  24. DrDaveT says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    I’m not going to be surprised if there were work issues in addition to religion.

    I’m not going to be surprised if there were only work issues. In fact, I will be mildly surprised if there were any not-work-related religious issues in play.

    This looks a whole lot more like Going Postal than like Jihad. The planning could easily be a red herring; people who go postal don’t just happen to have weapons with them when they start shooting, and not every Doomsday prepper is planning a mass murder.

    When we know what the work dispute was, it will all be a lot more clear. If everyone involved in that dispute is now dead, we may never know any better than we do now.

  25. C. Clavin says:

    @Guarneri:
    First: Chicagos laws work…it’s the NRA funded areas outside Chicago that don’t work.
    Second: Watering down laws, and then saying the laws don’t work so we shouldn’t have any is a clever ploy…but still a ploy.

  26. Stan says:

    I’ve long thought that gun laws would be tightened up after a mass shooting of whites if the shooters were African-American. On reflection, Moslems are even better.

  27. Guarneri says:

    @mantis:

    You are being silly now.

    Why don’t you guys stop with the impotent whining and change the constitution if you don’t like it’s provision. Perhaps because you know the majority of people will run your politicians out of town??

  28. Tyrell says:

    People at this party said that he got angry about something and stomped out (at one time that was called ” going postal”). It seems like that would have alarmed people and someone would have said we had better get out of here now and alert the police.

  29. C. Clavin says:

    I’m pretty sure as long as we all pray to a supernatural being for which there is no proof…everything will be fine.
    Thank you Republicans.

  30. JKB says:

    @CSK:

    The Ft Hood killer pre-planned, trained and was organized, yet neither the Commander in Chief nor the Army Chief of Staff could recognize enemy action at one of their interior CONUS bases.

  31. BK says:

    @Jack:

    Cali, which has waiting periods, Universal Background Checks, licensing, registration–basically all of the anti gun wet dream desires when it comes to firearms–and still this happens. It’s almost like these stupid laws don’t actually do anything to prevent deranged individuals from committing their heinous act, but are simply feel good legislation to make it look like they are doing something.

    I am truly vexed, indeed.

    14 people died, you could maybe try to restrain your happiness for a few days?

  32. C. Clavin says:

    @Guarneri:
    we do not need to change the Constitution. We only have to regulate…as provided for in Heller, but subverted by gun cultists with small pee-pee’s…like you.

  33. Guarneri says:

    @C. Clavin:

    You may be aware of this invention called the truck. If Indiana didn’t sell guns then they would just be trucked in from somewhere else. Of course, you may have a point. If guns were outlawed in the entire US we might get somewhere. Because as we all know illegal things never, ever cross the border. You know, like drugs……

  34. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Chicagos laws work…it’s the NRA funded areas outside Chicago that don’t work.

    NRA funds cities outside of Chicago? Do they offer retirement benefits and free housing? Let me guess, next you’ll start blaming the politicians that failed to shred the Constitution and get rid of that pesky 2nd Amendment.

  35. dmhlt says:

    What IS clear is that it’s too soon – WAYYYY too soon – for our elected representatives to do anything – anything at all – about yet another tragedy caused by guns.

    [/snark]

  36. CSK says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    Most motives are probably mixed, if you analyze them long enough. And one could justify to oneself an attack like this by cloaking it in the raiments of holy jihad.

    @Mikey:

    Just after 9/11, there was an article in the Boston Globe about one of the hijackers, who had worked for a local consulting firm. His colleagues were bemused; they knew him as a regular guy who liked to have a couple of beers, watch sports, and talk about women.

    @anjin-san:

    Nope. It didn’t spring up out of a vacuum.

  37. Guarneri says:

    Well, I wish you all good luck in your pursuit of a gun ban. You might find your time better spent, though, perfecting that perpetual motion machine. But, proceed at your own pace and remember, be kind to Moby Dick when you catch him else PITA may come knocking at your door……..with pitch forks, not guns, mind you……….

  38. Jack says:

    @dmhlt:

    What IS clear is that it’s too soon – WAYYYY too soon – for our elected representatives to do anything – anything at all – about yet another tragedy caused by guns.

    I’d settle for all Democrat representatives in Cali falling on their sword and resign or openly admitt that gun laws don’t work.

  39. gVOR08 says:

    @Pch101:

    We need to take the fight to the homelands of these killers. When are we launching air strikes on Illinois?

    Saw someone a day or two ago saying that if you look at a list of “mass” shooters, we need to build a wall around North Carolina.

  40. Guarneri says:

    PS – no intel on the timing of that beer summit?? How about when Bammy scolds Rahm and tells him McDonald looks like his imaginary son??

  41. JKB says:

    @C. Clavin: I’m pretty sure as long as we all pray to a supernatural being for which there is no proof…everything will be fine.
    Thank you Republicans.

    You are confused. That is the Muslim goal….that everyone pray to the same supernatural being for which there is no proof.

  42. gVOR08 says:

    @Jack:
    A. IIRC there is one store in a Chicago suburb that has sold a quarter of the recovered guns used in crimes in Chicago. Chicago ordinances don’t apply in the suburbs.
    B. To be fully effective obviously gun laws have to be national.
    C. Why do you pretend to not understand what C. Clavin meant?
    D. Despite B., there seems to be a clear pattern that states with tighter gun laws have fewer shootings.

  43. Mikey says:

    The below went up on KTLA’s website a couple minutes ago:

    San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

    It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things — like workplace grievances — may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.

  44. Jack says:

    @gVOR08:

    Despite B., there seems to be a clear pattern that states with tighter gun laws have fewer shootings.

    Considering suicides account for 3/5 of all gun related deaths–twice as many as homicides, effectively what you are saying is passing more gun laws keep people from killing themselves. While at the same time stricter gun laws make it more difficult for people to defend themselves.

    Wyoming, has a high suicide rate but a low homicide rate. The District of Columbia, by contrast, has a low suicide rate but a high homicide rate.

    New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey’s which is the sixth lowest in gun related deaths, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

    Why do you pretend that strict gun laws actually make gun crime any lower?

  45. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:

    While at the same time stricter gun laws make it more difficult for people to defend themselves.

    Is that all you have? Myths perpetrated by the NRA? Seriously?
    The day of reckoning for gun owners is coming. How many more of these events do you think there have to be before the tipping point is reached? If gun owners were smart they would become part of the solution…instead pf being the main source of the problem. I know…I know…your name and smart have never been used in the same sentence before.

  46. CSK says:

    @Mikey:

    The thing about workplace shooters is that they almost always operate alone. Farook brought two shooters (one his wife/girlfriend) with him. I can’t think of another case where the shooter was part of a trio of shooters. Even if Farook was the leader and instigator, he and Malik and at least one other person had planned and prepared for this.

  47. Franklin says:

    @anjin-san: But how else could he claim that Obama was controlling the media (a completely laughable thought)?

  48. Jack says:
  49. Stan says:

    Pigovian taxes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax) are taxes on consumer goods that have what economists call negative externalities. The idea is to cut down consumption of the goods in a way that’s easy to implement and that brings in revenue. The classic example is taxes on cigarettes. What if taxes on weapons, levied at whatever level is most convenient, were imposed? Liberals would be happy at a measure that would decrease gun ownership, and conservatives at the possibility of lowering their tax rates. It’s not a perfect solution, but given the nature of the American public and of our political system it would be a first step.

  50. Jack says:

    Mods, please release my comment.

  51. Mikey says:

    @CSK: No doubt this was a planned thing, and his apparent radicalization is an important factor. I’m just wondering how the office holiday party figures into it. There are certainly dozens of better locations to target in that area, if the objective is purely terrorism.

    One woman who was shot is recovering in the hospital, and her son, visiting, told her who did the shooting. Her response was “how can that be, we were all congratulating him on having a baby.”

  52. Gustopher says:

    @Jack: Do you support Farook’s right to have a large cache of guns, and body armor? Great for self-defense in case of home invasion, and handy for mass shootings too. Do you support it?

  53. Jack says:

    @Gustopher: From what I hear, most of what Farouk had was illegal in the state of California. I do not know how he obtained those weapons–legally or illegally. The rifles were illegal. The bombs were illegal. The body armor is immaterial.

    Farouk had no right to illegal firearms or bombs.

    I have a large cache of guns…all legal. I support responsible use and ownership of guns. Killing people indiscriminately is not an example of responsible use and ownership of guns.

  54. Pch101 says:

    Two handguns recovered have been traced back to Farook. He purchased them legally three or four years ago, an official said. Two rifles were purchased by someone else, possibly a former roommate, also legally three or four years ago.

    http://wreg.com/2015/12/03/president-says-terror-not-ruled-out-fbi-taking-over-california-attack-investigation/

  55. C. Clavin says:

    Here is a bunch of people who are actually getting paid for letting these mass killings happen more than daily (355 in 336 days).
    http://nymag.com/following/2015/12/journalist-to-politicians-prayers-arent-enough.html?mid=twitter-share-following
    People like Jack and Guarneri and whoever else are just mindless dupes.

  56. C. Clavin says:

    I haven’t read all these comments…but has anyone asked Jack and Guarnari where they were after radical christian terrorist shooting last week? I don’t remember them being here commenting so rabidly about white folks, just brown people.

  57. mantis says:

    @Guarneri:

    You are being silly now.

    Brilliant rebuttal.

    Why don’t you guys stop with the impotent whining and change the constitution if you don’t like it’s provision.

    We don’t need to change the Constitution, we just need to regulate gun owners, per the 2nd Amendment.

  58. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: I don’t comment on “the folks” either white, brown, or other. I comment towards radical idiots like you that want to take away my rights because you don’t agree with them.

  59. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    We don’t need to change the Constitution, we just need to regulate gun owners, per the 2nd Amendment.

    Get right on that. I’ll wait.

  60. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Here is a bunch of people who are actually getting paid for letting these mass killings happen more than daily (355 in 336 days).

    You need to re-read your reference material. There have not been 355 mass killings in 336 days. You may as well start calling every bullet that leaves a chamber a “shooting”, then you can say there were over 3 million shootings this year.

  61. WR says:

    @Guarneri: “pal of HRC and Bammy,”

    “Bammy.” So I guess you’ve decided to give up the pretense and go full moron.

  62. Jack says:

    @WR:

    “Bammy.”

    Would you prefer President Stompy Feet?

  63. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Get right on that. I’ll wait.

    Since this mass shooting was committed by Pakistani-Americans, with possible ties to terrorists, and not another white guy, we may see some actually movement by legislators. I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll support whatever rational regulations emerge.

  64. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    There have not been 355 mass killings in 336 days.

    There have been 355 mass shootings, in which 4 or more people are shot, in 336 days.

  65. WR says:

    @DrDaveT: “This looks a whole lot more like Going Postal than like Jihad. ”

    I don’t know why we keep insisting there’s this huge gulf between a “terrorist” and a “nut who kills a lot of people.”

    No, actually I do. It’s because we choose to believe that “terrorists” are totally evil masterminds focused purely on their religio-poltical goals, while nuts are disaffected, unhappy people driven by emotions they can’t understand or control and who finally snap.

    My guess is that there’s a huge overlap between the two populations — that a lot of the front-line terrorists are people who are desperately unhappy and driven by emotions they can’t understand or control, and who find a way to channel all that into what looks like a cause or a meaning. More than that, I’d bet that a lot of the people who want to join ISIS today would have wanted to pal around with the Red Brigades or Baader-Meinhoffs 40 years back, despite the fact that the groups’ goals are radically opposed. It’s just where you go when you feel like you don’t belong anywhere.

    Oh, and just for the record — I’m not saying that the SB shooters fall into either category. Since there’s no information about them yet, I’ll withhold judgment… even if that might get me kicked off the internet.

  66. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    but I’ll support whatever rational regulations emerge.

    I won’t.

  67. WR says:

    @Tyrell: “It seems like that would have alarmed people and someone would have said we had better get out of here now and alert the police.”

    Yes, because every time some guy gets turned down by a girl at a party, or they run out of crab dip, or they only have light beer, and he leaves angrily, we must alert the police immediately. I know that when I was at a party and two guys had an argument over whether the last Indiana Jones movie was worse than the last Star Wars, everyone fled the neighborhood and called SWAT. Only some felt compelled to leave the country until the area had been pacified.

  68. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    There have been 355 mass shootings

    That was not what Clavin said. He said, and I quote:

    Here is a bunch of people who are actually getting paid for letting these mass killings happen more than daily (355 in 336 days).

    That is not how the FBI classifies “mass shootings”. So, Clavin and you are only lying a little bit?

    Like I said, why not just say that every round that leaves the chamber is a shooting? It will increase your numbers…and make you look like the lying, attention whores you are trying to be.

  69. Tyrell says:

    @mantis: There are already a lot of regulation and laws on the books addressing gun ownership. What else do you have in mind ?
    Most gun owners have guns for these reasons : hunting, competition, collectors, and protection. These are legitimate, legal reasons, and should not be interfered with. Most of those involve hunting, competition, and antique guns.

  70. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    That was not what Clavin said.

    I’m aware of that. I was correcting.

    That is not how the FBI classifies “mass shootings”. So, Clavin and you are only lying a little bit?

    No, the FBI’s classification is absurd. It only counts as a mass shooting if the perpetrators are good shots? Idiotic.

    Like I said, why not just say that every round that leaves the chamber is a shooting?

    The operative word here is “mass.” Every round that leaves the chamber is a shooting. Or do you think that bullets fired don’t shoot?

    You’re pretty dim, aren’t you?

  71. WR says:

    @Jack: Really, you don’t have to prove you’re even dumber than Drew. You’ve never pretended to be anything other than an idiot, while he likes to claim to be some super brain in business.

  72. mantis says:

    @Tyrell:

    There are already a lot of regulation and laws on the books addressing gun ownership. What else do you have in mind ?

    Thorough background checks (that are not simply passed through if the check is not performed within an absurdly short amount of time) for every gun purchase, gift, or transfer. Regular registration of all owned guns, complete with mental health and background checks for the owners. Mandatory and regular training on gun safety and maintenance for all gun owners. Extremely stiff penalties for straw purchasers or gun owners who through negligence allow their weapons to fall into the hands of children or criminals. Extremely stiff penalties for gun sellers who subvert or ignore the regulations.

    The Constitution provides the freedom to bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia. It’s time to take that seriously and regulate all guns and gun owners, and regulate them well.

  73. Jack says:

    @Tyrell:

    What else do you have in mind ?

    This is what they want.

    1) All firearms registered.
    2) All gun owners registered
    3) All ammunition registered
    4) All gun owners receive annual psych evaluations
    5) Reducing the type and kind of “legal” firearms until none are left for legal use
    6) All gun owners be classified as mentally deficient because they want to own a firearm
    7) The removal of firearms from “civilian” ownership
    8) The round up of all firearm owners for re-education

    This will somehow magically eliminate the use of firearms during the commission of crimes throughout the country because only the police will have firearms.

  74. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    The Constitution provides the freedom to bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia. It’s time to take that seriously and regulate all guns and gun owners, and regulate them well.

    A well regulated militia is simply ONE of the reasons the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Not because of the militia. Your selective reading of the 2nd amendment has not been endorsed by any Supreme Court ruling.

  75. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    The operative word here is “mass.” Every round that leaves the chamber is a shooting. Or do you think that bullets fired don’t shoot?

    I fire about 500-1000 rounds every time I go to the range. Is that not a mass shooting?

  76. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    A well regulated militia is simply ONE of the reasons the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Actually, it’s the only one, stupid.

  77. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    I fire about 500-1000 rounds every time I go to the range. Is that not a mass shooting?

    God, you are dumb. We are talking about a phrase meant to define shooting at people, which you well know. Take your idiotic semantic arguments and shove them up your ass.

  78. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    Actually, it’s the only one, stupid.

    And yet, 5 justices in Heller disagree with you. But you call me stupid.

  79. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    Take your idiotic semantic arguments and shove them up your ass.

    Awww. Is someone getting upset because people have opinions that challenge his world view? It’s OK Matnis. Please proceed directly to your safe space located within your nearest liberal college or university.

  80. Pch101 says:

    The expression “doesn’t know jack” is particularly meaningful on this website.

  81. Guarneri says:

    How have the caged monkeys been getting along without me??

    Pipe bombs; material to make more. Thousands of rounds of ammo. Military garb. A woman shooting it out with the cops Rambo style. Yep. Sounds like a workplace dispute to me.

    Who knew such nice, quiet people could become so, uh, “animated” by a disappointing “holiday season” gift exchange?? Maybe the coffee was cold. Golly gosh. If we just had better gun laws this could have been avoided. No way bomb makers who purchase ammo by the handy ton would disobey the law. No way. Plus they’d have time to cool down. Probably would have come back to the party and quietly settled it with 1-2-3-4 I declare a thumb war……

  82. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Is someone getting upset because people have opinions that challenge his world view?

    “Der der, a shooting is when I fire a bullet” is not a challenge to my opinion, moron. It’s a silly semantic argument you use because you have no real arguments.

  83. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    And yet, 5 justices in Heller disagree with you.

    So are we safe to assume you agree with every Supreme Court decision ever made?

  84. Pch101 says:

    If gun control has no impact on the ability to obtain weapons, then there isn’t much reason to devote so much energy to freaking out about it.

  85. Jack says:

    @mantis: Considering most “mass shootings” to which you refer happen within the confines of anti gun bastions where strict gun laws are the norm by lower class and minority persons who likely didn’t undergo the strict gun laws those locals prescribe against lower class minority persons who couldn’t defend themselves because of the strict gun laws those locals prescribe…maybe, just maybe, your worldview on guns is misplaced?

    But you, President Stompy Feet, and the MSM don’t care about those shootings because they don’t fit your narrative.

  86. Jack says:

    @mantis: All 9 judges agreed that the right to bare arms was an individual right.

    And no, I don’t agree with all court decisions, but rarely do these decisions hit so close to individual rights as the Heller and McDonald cases.

  87. rodney dill says:
  88. Jack says:

    @Pch101:

    If gun control has no impact on the ability to obtain weapons, then there isn’t much reason to devote so much energy to freaking out about it.

    And yet the freaks must get their gun control freak on whenever something like this occurs, especially in a gun control bastion.

  89. Bill Lefrak says:

    Well, at this point it’s a pretty safe bet this wasn’t about a YouTube video. Also pretty clear that the Islamic terrorists who committed this latest atrocity didn’t really care too much about “climate change,” student loan relief, the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, women’s rights, equal pay, taking down Wal-Mart, “gun control,” or any of the other airheaded matters to which the chattering classes and future baristas of America devote so much of their attention deficit disorders.

    They just wanted to kill a bunch of people. That’s what Jihadis do. It’s how they roll.

    Leftism as policy and the brain dead PC thinking in academia and the media will be the death of much of Western civilization. Just give it time. Paris, Brussels, Ft. Hood, Boston, now San Bernardino, those merely are the very tip of the iceberg. The worst is yet to come.

  90. Pch101 says:

    @Jack

    You need to take a sedative or six and work on your Googling skills. Buying a gun in California isn’t tough. You keep acting as if guns are banned in California, when they are anything but.

  91. Jack says:

    @rodney dill: And yet, many of those 355 were listed as simply injured. Injured by what I ask. By gunshots you say. Prove it I reply. I can’t you say. That’s right I reply.

    A person could have been injured by falling drywall, slipping and falling over someone else, having broke glass fall on them, etc., They were not all injured with a bullet.

  92. Jack says:

    @Pch101: And yet, Cali gets an A- from the Brady Campaign to stay relevant because of all the gun laws, the waiting periods, the universal background checks, the magazine bans, the gun type bans, the gun model bans.

  93. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    They were not all injured with a bullet.

    Yes, they were, you moron. You can follow links to the reports on each shooting.

    Prove it I reply. I can’t you say.

    It’s already proven, you lying shitbag. You choose to ignore the proof.

  94. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    All 9 judges agreed that the right to bare arms was an individual right.

    Four of them dissented that the militia preamble actually matters, and thus the well-regulated part. The other five decided that part of the amendment has nothing to do with the rest of it, an absurd conclusion.

  95. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    It’s already proven, you lying shitbag. You choose to ignore the proof.

    Lie. I opened several of those links and everyone I opened that listed 4 or more “injured” did not say how they were injured.
    But please, keep yapping like the frustrated and impotent Chihuahua that you are.

  96. Jc says:

    “4) All gun owners receive annual psych evaluations”
    this is the one Jack fears most…it would put him on the no sell list.

    Jack, you can get some paint guns and nerf guns, all fire pretty far and fast at targets…no need to squeeze off 500-1000 rounds every other day to get out your angst…of course with the nerf and paint guns you probably don’t get that full fantasy rush/high of killing off the bad guys that real bullets provide you, but you will save money on ammunition

  97. al-Ameda says:

    @Bill Lefrak:

    Leftism as policy and the brain dead PC thinking in academia and the media will be the death of much of Western civilization. Just give it time. Paris, Brussels, Ft. Hood, Boston, now San Bernardino, those merely are the very tip of the iceberg. The worst is yet to come.

    So, you’re blaming liberals ii Boston for the Marathon bombings, and in Paris for those recent terror murders?

    I’m pretty sure that “brain dead” describes modern American conservatives who share that opinion.

  98. Jack says:

    @mantis: Nonetheless, all 9 judges did, in fact, agree that the right to bare arms was an individual right. They did not agree that it was this intangible “collective right”. The four dissenting justices in Heller, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, instead preferred what is called the “narrow individual right.”

    It was an individual right, nonetheless.

    According to Justice Stevens, “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent. Justice Breyer wrote, “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”

    So, all 9 judges agreed. It was a unanimous decision for individual rights.

  99. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Guarneri:

    who covers up police murders of black men for political gain.

    When did you become opposed to police murdering black people? Please stay on script! This ad-libbing is confusing to people who don’t understand who you are!

  100. Jack says:

    @Jc:

    this is the one Jack fears most…it would put him on the no sell list.

    I undergo more evaluations and approvals for my security clearance than you undergo dental cleanings.

  101. rodney dill says:

    @Jack: These were all about shooting events. If a shooter breaks in, shoots 3 people, and a fourth is injured jumping out a window, to escape being shot, I’m copacetic with counting it as 4 (dead or injured) due to a shooting.

    I’m certainly not going to vet the links to someone who denies anything that doesn’t agree with their own narrow-minded opinion. The burden is on you to show that these links are substantially incorrect, as that seems to be your assertion. While I’m certain there a some discrepancies contained in them, as a whole I believe they are far more factual than you are.

  102. Jack says:

    @rodney dill: Many of the links did not go in to detail as to how people were injured. If they were shot and only wounded, they said so. Which leaves one wondering about the stories in which the title describes “2 dead 7 wounded in shooting” but only gives details about the 2 dead and 1 shot in the leg. What happened to the other 6 people? Or is the media simply hyping their own stories to sell ads? What does Occam’s razor tell you?

  103. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Guarneri: Why is it that every time someone talks about strengthening restrictions on selling guns to insane people, guys like you characterize it as calling for a gun ban? Are you trying to make the “nose of the camel” argument? Slippery slope?

  104. Mu says:

    This shooting has the odd effect of proving both sides right. It clearly shows that so called “reasonable regulations” don’t prevent mass shootings. The shooters here followed what is arguably the strictest gun laws on a state level to the t, and still got everything they needed.
    You either go for Hilary’s forced buy-back, followed by 20 years of “war on guns” to get the 295 M guns not turned in, or we get used to these kind of news. Lovely choices.

  105. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    So, all 9 judges agreed. It was a unanimous decision for individual rights.

    With whom are you arguing? Because it ain’t me. I have stated no position that aims to deny “the people” (or individuals, generally) the right to keep and bear arms. I wish to regulate the ownership and use of those arms far better than we do now. I believe the founders intended for the ownership of arms to be regulated due to the need for a well-regulated militia.

  106. Pch101 says:

    Jack’s inability to comprehend a Supreme Court opinion doesn’t give me much hope for the conservative movement. A root canal would be less painful.

  107. rodney dill says:

    @Jack: Occam’s razor tells me they were injured during the shooting, and as a result of the shooting, even if they only gave themselves a paper cut while escaping the shooter.

  108. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    What does Occam’s razor tell you?

    Apparently Occam’s Razor tells you that in a shooting that kills two and injures another with bullets, six other people also fell on rakes. Because you don’t understand Occam’s Razor, which suggests that you choose the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

  109. WR says:

    @Jack: “I undergo more evaluations and approvals for my security clearance than you undergo dental cleanings.”

    Yes, I guess anyone who works that closely around the seven herbs and spices in the Colonel’s original recipe would have to undergo clearances. Big time secrets there. Good thing Jack’s got lots and lots and lots of guns to keep those guys from Popeye’s away.

  110. Jack says:

    @mantis: The government cannot properly account for all of its own weapons. How do you suggest they account for 300 million?

  111. Jack says:

    @rodney dill:

    even if they only gave themselves a paper cut while escaping the shooter

    And that is the problem. A paper cut that occurs during a shooting is not and should not be called a shooting related injury.

  112. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    Because you don’t understand Occam’s Razor, which suggests that you choose the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

    Occam’s Razor tells me, that if the news story specifically accounts for those injured with bullets, then any other injuries are not from bullets. Who is making the assumptions here?

  113. Jack says:

    @WR:

    Yes, I guess anyone who works that closely around the seven herbs and spices in the Colonel’s original recipe would have to undergo clearances. Big time secrets there. Good thing Jack’s got lots and lots and lots of guns to keep those guys from Popeye’s away.

    My bona fides WRT government work and clearances is without a doubt and well documented within OTB.

  114. rodney dill says:

    @Jack: I disagree, it was caused due to the shooting, the claim is not the number of individuals shot.

    Here’s another one, two shot, two injured. Either didn’t make the cut because it was recent or because the two injured weren’t shot, just injured during the attempted escape.

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3-people-shot-1-killed-on-detroits-east-side/36742136

    I also noticed the links mention quite a few instances of 4 or more actually shot. You’re on pretty think ice if your only argument is that the shootings where 4 or more are actually hit with a bullet is 250, or 275, or 300, or some other number less than 355.

  115. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    The government cannot properly account for all of its own weapons. How do you suggest they account for 300 million?

    I choose not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Who is making the assumptions here?

    Still you, who seems to think that a reporter would write an article about seven people being shot by phrasing each injury as “injured by bullets,” when it is clear to any reasonable reader that the injuries described in a story about a mass shooting can be assumed to have come from the guns involved, unless some other, non-gun weapon is involved or accidental injury occurred.

    I would also note that you still clearly do not understand Occam’s Razor. It suggests that the hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one, not that no assumptions must be made. And also judging by your question above, you seem to think that you aren’t making any assumptions at all, when you clearly make many.

  116. Jc says:

    Jack, do you support banning firearm sales to american muslims?

  117. Jack says:

    @rodney dill: My point is these statistics are being overinflated. Now, why would people want to overinflate statistics? What is the motivation?

    Hmmm, I wonder.

    My point is, I will not be part of number 356, 357, 358, or whatever number you want to throw out there.

    There’s a reason for the quote “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”.

  118. Jack says:

    @Jc:

    Jack, do you support banning firearm sales to american muslims?

    No. Why would we?

  119. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    My point is these statistics are being overinflated.

    Assertion without evidence.

  120. Rodney Dill says:

    @rodney dill: I’ll correct myself, the claim by the reddit site I originally posted says.

    A mass shooting is when four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period.

    So their claim is that 4 or more actually shot. I’d be perfectly willing to include all injured during the shooting, not just shot. so by my criteria there could be significantly more that 355 events.

  121. anjin-san says:

    This interactive map suggests that California’s gun laws may indeed be effective at reducing mass shootings, especially when you consider that a significant chunk of America’s population lives here…

  122. KM says:

    @Jack:

    4) All gun owners receive annual psych evaluations

    Serious question for you: why is this a problem? As many of the shooters lately are being called mentally ill, it follows logically you should check for illness in licences holders. It could also catch potential radicalization or other red flags that casual acquaintances miss. We go to the doctors yearly as recommended health measure, why not a yearly shrink appointment?

    I’m a big fan of yearly re-licensing for everything from cars to boats to guns under the theory that a lot can change in a year (eyesight, health) and it forces you to keep proper skills sets up. Think about it – how many people lose their inclination to signal every time (it’s fine, nobody there), how many get lax with gun safety (tip pointed to someone even if unloaded). We get study, practice and train for licencing and then go lax because we aren’t held accountable regularly. If we keep the fees low ($5 a year??), it would reduce the burden greatly and ensure a steady cash flow to keep police departents in good gear and better hires.

    I’m honestly curious why this is a sticking point. Insane people with a gun is a win for no side and a possible safety hazard (to themselves mostly but potentially to the general public) that’s easily avoidable. Can you explain why you disagree?

  123. Jack says:

    @Jc: Jc, do you support Due Process of Law?

  124. rodney dill says:

    @Jack: There’s no evidence that they are over-inflated, and based on the links not even a hint that they are grossly over-inflated.

    Might the number be too high? maybe. It might also be too low. But it seems to be a good faith attempt to put a stake in the sand to measure the number of mass shootings.

    Now they could’ve picked any number as the threshold besides 4. Even if you picked 8 or 10 the number of shooting would be significant.

    Are these stats being used to push someones agenda? absolutely. That in itself doesn’t mean they are incorrectl

  125. Jack says:

    @KM:

    Serious question for you: why is this a problem?

    Because this would be used to deny perfectly sane people from owning guns.

    Don’t like Muslims, Gays, Christians, Transexuals, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever…you are unstable

    There has been suggestion that the mere desire to own a gun proves that the person is unstable, and therefore cannot own a gun.

    There is no subjective criteria this test would meet.

    Additionally, this criteria would not be accepted to vote. People complain that republicans are stifling the vote by demanding voter ID laws, couldn’t the same be said for Democrats stifling gun ownership by demanding psych evaluations?

  126. Jc says:

    @Jack: How about those with known links to terrorists?

  127. Jack says:

    @rodney dill: Even Moms Demanding a Little Action states in their press release for this latest Cali shooting: This incident is one of at least 141 mass shootings that have occurred in America since 2009, and this event is the 21st mass shooting in 2015.

    Which indicates the 355 this year is way overinflated.

  128. Jack says:

    @Jc: I’m waiting for you to answer my Due Process question.

  129. Jc says:

    Lol, I knew you were for some form of gun control. American Muslims with known links to terrorism. Okay, we got that one down. Pro-gress, say it with me, Jack.

  130. Jack says:

    @Jc:

    Lol, I knew you were for some form of gun control. American Muslims with known links to terrorism. Okay, we got that one down. Pro-gress, say it with me, Jack.

    Under Due Process, I’m for anyone being denied a gun. That’s not gun control, it’s criminal control.

  131. Jack says:
  132. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    More from Moms Demand Action’s statement:

    “A previously released report from Everytown for Gun Safety provides a comprehensive analysis of incidents in which four or more people were murdered with a gun, a widely used definition of mass shootings from the FBI.”

    Many of us think it is absurd to only classify mass shootings as incidents where four or more people are killed, as opposed to shot at and injured with guns. That is the point of the Reddit tracker, which I personally agree with. If you (or the FBI, for that matter) would like to explain how a shooting where at least four people are injured but fewer than four people are killed is not a “mass shooting,” please do so. By the FBI’s definition, someone could shoot 1500 people but only kill three of them and it still wouldn’t be a mass shooting. Does that make any sense?

  133. Jc says:

    @Jack: but I thought the 2nd amendment said ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

  134. Jc says:

    @Jack: but I thought the 2nd amendment said ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

  135. Jack says:

    @rodney dill@mantis: @WR: They’re counting the Virginia News Crew as a mass shooting. I guess because white reporters count as two ordinary people.

    Yeah, that’s some good analytic work there, Lew.

  136. anjin-san says:

    @Jack:

    Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

    Most of the people here are aware of this. And in a larger sense, so what? Certainly this is good news, but it does not make the epidemic of mass shooting we are experiencing acceptable or inevitable.

  137. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak;

    Yes it is, but it is still sickeningly high. One need only compare it with the rates in other developed countries to see that.

  138. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    They’re counting the Virginia News Crew as a mass shooting. I guess because white reporters count as two ordinary people.

    He killed the reporter and cameraman, injured the woman they were interviewing, and then killed himself. That’s four. Can you even count?

  139. Jack says:

    @Jc: And the 5th says:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  140. Jack says:

    @mantis: Wait, you get to count the people that commit the crimes and people that kill themselves?

    So, If JJ shoots Pookie, Ice Dog, and Ray-Ray, and one of them manages to wing him back with return fire, that’s a “mass shooting”.

    Stay clear of the drugs.

  141. Stan says:

    Here are the laws relating to gun ownership in a country allied to the US:

    To obtain a firearms license an applicant must be a resident for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check that considers the applicant’s health, mental, and criminal history, establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course. The government will maintain an official registry of all residents with firearms licenses.
    All those holding firearms licenses must renew them and re-take a shooting course at a gun range every three years and pass a psychological exam every six years. They must demonstrate they have a safe at home in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and are given a lifetime supply of 50 bullets to take home. In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry licenses to their members for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces). Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles, and air pistols) after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals who want to engage in practice shooting are allowed supervised use of pistols at firing ranges.
    Those licensed to possess firearms may not carry them in public without a permit. Separate permits exist for being allowed to carrying open and concealed weapons.
    The maximum penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm is 10 years in prison.

    I wonder what Doug and Jack think about these laws.

  142. Lit3Bolt says:

    Nice to see the 2nd Amendment liberals out in full force.

    Liberal on terrorism.
    Liberal on mass shootings.
    Liberal on rape and murder.
    Liberal on suicide.
    Liberal on child safety.
    Liberal on gang violence.
    Liberal on public health, safety, and welfare.

    Republicans and the NRA…soft on terrorism. Coddlers of criminals. Indifferent to the suffering of mothers and children. Republicans and the NRA pray…literally…for victims of crime and terrorism, so they can bleat about how “tough” they are.

    While Saudi Arabi will fund jihadis, the NRA will arm them.

  143. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Wait, you get to count the people that commit the crimes and people that kill themselves?

    If the shooter kills him/herself as well as the other victims, yes that is counted.

    You could just read the definition instead of continuing to ask stupid questions:

    The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is therefore only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event.

    Here at GrC, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, “shooting” means “people shot”.

    For instance, in 2012 Travis Steed and others shot 18 people total. Miraculously, he only killed one. Under the incorrect definition of mass shooting, that event would not be considered a mass shooting! Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd.

    The only requirement is that four or more people are shot in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself (because they often suicide by cop or use a gun to kill themselves to escape punishment), or police shootings of civilians around the gunman. The reasoning behind the latter being that if the shooter is arrested, he will often be charged with injuring people the police actually shot, as that is a foreseeable result of a shooting spree.

  144. JKB says:

    Just saw the Attorney General saying they have no idea what motivated this attack. One assumes the White House staff is furiously searching out a video to blame it on.

    They really don’t see that every time the dissemble like this people lose confidence in government trustworthiness and competency. As a libertarian, I see that as a good thing.

  145. Pch101 says:

    @JKB:

    I’m stunned that real criminal investigations aren’t resolved as quickly as they are on Law and Order and CSI: Miami. The idea that a case can’t be buttoned down in less than 24 hours when I’ve seen it otherwise on TV police dramas is completely ridiculous.

  146. Steve V says:

    @JKB: The guy had worked with these people, which makes you wonder if there was a personal motive. Plus, as a terrorist attack it’s a pretty weird attack. I live in LA, there are hundreds of targets that would make a political statement for terrorists. This might look to law enforcement as much like the Chris Dorner incident as it does to any terrorist attack (although I guess you think maybe Chris Dorner was a terrorist).

  147. Pch101 says:

    @Steve V:

    I don’t think that you understand. There are bloggers and guys in their mothers’ basements who post comments online who have already solved the case, so there is no more need to investigate. No point in having a justice system when we have online polling and Twitter.

  148. mantis says:

    @Steve V:

    although I guess you think maybe Chris Dorner was a terrorist

    Of course he doesn’t. Dorner wasn’t a Muslim and didn’t have a Muslim-sounding name. Remember: any crime committed by a Muslim is automatically terrorism; no investigation needed.

  149. michael reynolds says:

    The shooters were members of two radical groups:

    1) Radical Islam
    2) The radical gun cult.

    One supplies the motivation, the other the means to kill.

  150. rodney dill says:

    @Jack: So just what criteria were the Mom’s in Cali using for a mass shooting. You seemed to have left that out.

    …and as far as the Virginia New crew, so what? you found one discrepancy. I already believe there are several. Find 300 more significant discrepancies and I’ll start to think you know what you’re talking about.

  151. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    Nonetheless, all 9 judges did, in fact, agree that the right to bare arms was an individual right.

    It is only a semantic nit pick, but since you seem to be so fond of those the right to bare arms would mean the right to go sleeveless. I don’t think anyone here is arguing against short sleeves.

  152. Gustopher says:

    @Jack:

    From what I hear, most of what Farouk had was illegal in the state of California. I do not know how he obtained those weapons–legally or illegally. The rifles were illegal. The bombs were illegal. The body armor is immaterial.

    Farouk had no right to illegal firearms or bombs.

    You oppose the restrictions on his ownership of assault weapons, if I am reading your comments correctly.

    You are only opposed to him having bombs, correct? The large cache of weapons and ammunition, and body armor are all fine until the shooting starts? For defending against home invasion, or sport, or just to admire them.

  153. Steve V says:

    @Gustopher: According to the LAT, the guns were bought legally from a gun store in Corona.

  154. Tyrell says:

    ISIS control, not gun control. Do not listen to the controlled, propaganda media that keeps hawking more gun control. Hillary has already come out and said we need more “gun control”: false ! That will not get her more votes. There is already enough of the gun control, which means that someone is trying to disarm the American people. The people want to hear what the president is going to do to defeat radical islamic terrorists. They are not buying any such nonsense that this was just “workplace violence”, so don’t try that on us. Ft. Hood was not “workplace violence” ; neither is this.

  155. Pch101 says:

    @Tyrell:

    There is already enough of the gun control, which means that someone is trying to disarm the American people.

    Syed Farook was an American people. Born in the US, raised and educated in the US, no criminal record until yesterday, guns obtained legally.

    In America, gun control doesn’t exist except for the ability to hit your target. This happens several thousand times per year, so mission accomplished. You should be proud.

  156. WR says:

    @Jack: “My bona fides WRT government work and clearances is without a doubt and well documented within OTB.”

    That’s the attitude! You keep telling yourself that, and one day the magic fairy lady will make it all come true!

  157. mantis says:

    @Tyrell:

    There is already enough of the gun control

    Clearly.

  158. Monala says:

    @rodney dill: So it’s not, as Jack claims, the number of bullets that leave the gun, but the actual number of people who were hit, since all of those cases include at least 4 people injured or killed.

  159. Jenos Idanian says:

    Reading the comments from the first article here were quite enlightening. The shooter/shooters, obviously, were white, Christian, racist, white supremacist, and government-hating. Which led to the standard condemnations, along with the mockery of those who offered “thoughts and prayers” for the victims.

    Then the details started emerging. The shooters weren’t white, weren’t racists, weren’t Christian, weren’t any of the stereotypes. Far from being anti-government, the guy was a government employee. And I’d even make a small wager that he was a union member. Oh, and President Obama offered his “thoughts and prayers” for the victims.

    On that previous thread, Mr. reynolds had an interesting speculation: this had all the hallmarks of a standard radical Islamist terrorist attack — except for the chosen target. He thought that maybe they’d prepared an attack, but then the guy got mad about work and chose to carry out the plan on his co-workers.

    Let’s see: very devout Muslim, married a Muslim woman from another country, traveled to the Muslim world for a while. Built up a very impressive arsenal over time. Went out equipped in full tactical gear, including both wearing GoPro cameras. Had bombs that could have come straight of the terrorist manuals. (Didn’t work.) And there’s one report that the guy had a very heated argument with a colleague (a Jew, no less) about whether Islam is a peaceful religion. The other party to the argument was among those killed — guess that settled that argument.

    Now, about these “common-sense” gun control measures that so many are calling for. Let’s hear some details. But unless you can explain how the new laws you want passed would have actually prevented this tragic case of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome. And, as a certain person likes to say, please be specific.

  160. bill says:

    @C. Clavin: the muslims you defend all seem to pray to some “being” as well- coincidence? so why are you so hellbent on defending people like that? i mean aside from the obvious need to be wrong about everything…..

    but back to reality- i wish i could have stayed home and just watched the left squirm about the muslims who killed all these people, the spin was pretty good at first but just fell apart after so many coincidences popped up. so who’s to blame now- allah, guns, racist white folks?

  161. Matt says:

    @anjin-san: Strawman with apples and oranges. Murder is still illegal and he didn’t ask for it to be legalized.

  162. Mikey says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    both wearing GoPro cameras

    San Bernardino police chief said at a news conference today that report was erroneous, they were not wearing cameras.

    That doesn’t take away from the rest of the preparations they made, of course. And we still don’t know–and may never–if they were rolling out to attack another location when they were engaged by the police.

  163. michael reynolds says:

    Monotheistic religions are inherently intolerant. The difference between the intolerance in Christianity and Islam is that Christians have been tamed by secular power. There’s nothing inherently more threatening about Islam except for the fact that it lacks a Henry VIII and a Robespierre (among others.)

    The reason we are having problems with Islam – and for Christ’s sake spare me the protestations that Islam is a religion of peace, blah, blah, blah, it is inherently expansionistic just like Christianity – is that the governments in Muslim countries are universally incompetent. Salafism exists and thrives because the indolent, useless Saudi royal family lacks the authority to do anything about it. Half these governments live by the grace of their religious leaders. These are barbarian regimes who murder gays and tolerate fanatics.

    And once again, out of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia comes a religious nut on a mission to kill Americans. Stop being sexist and looking at Syed Farook. Look at Tashkeen Malik. Maybe he’s not the king but the pawn.

  164. stonetools says:

    One of the the interesting things about current interpretation of the Second Amendment is the way it allows people to enjoy all the rights of the Second Amendment, while avoiding all the responsibilities. The framers of the Second Amendment really did want a well regulated militia, ( which they wanted as a substitute for a professional standing army) and wanted all able bodied men to be subject to be drafted to serve in that militia. They didn’t really give a sh!t about self defense or the right of someone to own a gun for fun or hunting, or because guns are neat ( sorry Jack, Matt , and Doug), which is why none of these reasons were in the Second Amendment.No, it was all about raising a force capable of national defense.
    Since the concept was that men would be drafted into the militia in times of crisis , the expectation was that they would do more than just own a gun as some sort of cool toy. Rather they were expected to undergo basic training, learn to shoot and maintain their weapon, and regularly drill and march in formation, so that they were ready to serve in times of crisis. Needless to say, our current “militia” have no intention of subjecting themselves to regular military discipline,learning to properly maintain their toys, or maintaining a level of physical fitness such that they could carry out military duties. No guns are fun,and they should be able to buy any gun they want any time they want without any of the responsibilities of being a part of a “well regulated militia”.The founders would be aghast at what modern day America has made out of their attempt to provide for an alternate form of national defense.

  165. An Interested Party says:

    But please, keep yapping like the frustrated and impotent Chihuahua that you are.

    Actually, that Chihuahua would be someone who has so many guns and shoots off so many rounds and feels the need to tell the world about that…how macho, how manly…

    And for others who are using incidents like this to defame an entire religion…yes, please continue as that will certainly help us in the so-called War on Terrorism…

  166. An Interested Party says:

    Half these governments live by the grace of their religious leaders.

    Not to mention our government’s support…perhaps our government should stop supporting such regimes…

  167. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: You’re right, people shouldn’t use incidents like this one… or Fort Hood… or Paris… or the DC snipers… or 9/11… or Beslan… or Mumbai… or Mombasa… or Jakarta… or London… or Madrid… or Bangladesh… or Karachi… or that other Paris… or the first WTC attack… or Delhi… or Little Rock… or Moscow… or Domodedovo… or Boston… or Nairobi… or Grozny… or Ottawa… or Peshawar… or Copenhagen… or Garland, Texas… or…

    I’m sorry, what was the point you were making again? I got lost there…

  168. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Mikey: Missed the GoPro walkback. Thanks.

  169. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: Not to mention our government’s support…perhaps our government should stop supporting such regimes…

    “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

  170. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jack: If they’re all shot with the same gun–as was the case in VA, why not?

  171. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    By the way, Jenos, your hero:

    George Zimmerman’s Twitter account was suspended Thursday after his social media rants turned into what looked like revenge porn.

  172. Jenos Idanian says:

    @stonetools: he framers of the Second Amendment really did want a well regulated militia, ( which they wanted as a substitute for a professional standing army) and wanted all able bodied men to be subject to be drafted to serve in that militia. They didn’t really give a sh!t about self defense or the right of someone to own a gun for fun or hunting, or because guns are neat ( sorry Jack, Matt , and Doug), which is why none of these reasons were in the Second Amendment.No, it was all about raising a force capable of national defense.

    In what universe are you speaking of? ‘Cuz in the real universe, you have absolutely no effing idea of what you speak.

    Here’s a hint: the English language has changed over the past 200-odd years. Here’s what that phrase meant when the 2nd Amendment was written. And here’s another scholar who did the unthinkable and looked at how the phrase was used and understood at the time.

    But come on, I’m just dying here to hear these “common sense” gun laws that might have prevented this atrocity. And to once again steal one of annie’s favorite phrases, “please be specific.”

  173. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: Oh, come on, michael. You really wanna play like wr? Yeah, I acknowledge that if you were to try to impersonate that idiot, you could be a better wr than wr is, but you’re better than that. Even though it pains you that I find your position here almost somewhat sane, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.

  174. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: But if you wanna get personal and insulting, then I have to ask: aren’t you part of the religion that pretty much invented monotheism, and gave the world Christianity and Islam? Don’t both those faiths claim to have descended from your cult?

    At least my comment’s somewhat related to the topic at hand…

  175. An Interested Party says:

    I’m sorry, what was the point you were making again? I got lost there…

    Let me try to help you out…if a few hundred people commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion, which has over a billion followers, that doesn’t mean we should trash the religion, but rather, those who are using that religion to justify their actions…

    “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

    Good to know that you are in favor of Obamacare…after all, we did it together…

  176. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I’m only a Jew to an anti-Semite. I’m half, mother’s side, no one religious all the way back to the shtetl, and I’m an atheist.

    But yes: we started it.

  177. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: Yes, we both own our responsibilities for ObamaCare. You for supporting that cluster-fark, mine for not opposing it enough.

    But as far as Islam goes, let’s try a new tack, shall we? According to Islam, Mohammed was The Perfect Man. He was, by his own accounts and others, a sociopath, a liar, a murderer, and a pedophile. He was a genocidal warlord who made sure that “conversion by the sword” was an essenti9al tenet of the faith he founded from the outset. He wrote into the law how it was fine to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder in the cause of advancing Islam.

    Now, who best represents the Perfect Man among today’s Muslims?

    Now, for bonus points, contrast that with the “What Would Jesus Do” meme.

  178. stonetools says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You know, Mike, I’ve gotten to the stage where I don’t care about motivations anymore. Last week , a “cultural” Christian, for reasons of his own, attacked a women’s health clinic and killed people. This week , a “culturally” Muslim couple, for reasons of their own, attacked another health facility and killed a bunch more people. What matters is not why they did, but how they did.
    In each case the terrorists were able to legally acquire assault rifles, copious amounts of ammunition, and bomb making materials. Obviously, we have to prevent people from being able to easily do this.
    I have always said ( and still believe) that the way to do terrorism in the United States is not by trying to use bombs , but through the use of guns. We properly regulate bombs and bomb making materials, without giving much of a sh!t about the Second amendment, although bombs are just as much “arms” as guns.Note that neither Jack, Doug, Jenos, or Matt give a flying f#ck about the major infringements on the right of the people to own explosive weapons for self defense
    AS a result of our strict and sensible regulation of explosives, it is rather difficult to make effective bombs (although Oklahoma City shows it can be done). In the last couple of incidents, the bomb making attempts were thankfully futile. The guns, unfortunately, worked just fine. The plain fact is that you can acquire near military grade firearms easily in the USA, with minimal screening, thanks to the gun nuts and their enablers like Doug and Jenos. It seems that the terrorists ( of every stripe) have figured this out and are adapting their tactics according.
    While the terrorists were white men aimed at abortion clinics and otherwise doing God’s work, the gun nuts were able to ignore this and talk about lone wolves, mental illness. etc. Now that terrorists are brown skinned Muslims, they are going to have a much harder time heading off regulation, especially since conservatives have invested so much energy whipping up hatred against the “existential” Muslim menace. After all if we are engaged in a “clash of civilizations”, maybe we have bigger fish to fry than whether Johnny Redneck should be able to easily buy another AR 15 to add to his collection. It’s going to be interesting to see whether gun nuts win out over the national security folks. I suspect that after a few more Muslim terrorist strikes featuring guns, the Republicans are going to grudgingly agree to universal background checks and other sensible regulation of prospective gun owners. I would like to see the Republicans do it now, before things get worse, but conservatives are pretty stupid, so I expect things to get worse before they get better.

  179. Pch101 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Let me try to help you out…if a few hundred people commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion, which has over a billion followers, that doesn’t mean we should trash the religion, but rather, those who are using that religion to justify their actions…

    The mark of a bigot is one who takes pains to note the distinctions of those who share his race, ethnicity or faith while stereotyping and lumping together those who do not.

    Hence, the white killer is a one-off deviant who has nothing to do with us, while the black killer is a reflection of his entire race and the Muslim killer represents everyone who holds the same faith. This is just good old fashioned racism, except today’s racists vehemently deny that they are racists even as they blatantly practice racism. (They know intuitively that it isn’t socially acceptable to be a racist, but that pressure isn’t enough to persuade them to abandon the racism.)

  180. DrDaveT says:

    @michael reynolds:

    The difference between the intolerance in Christianity and Islam is that Christians have been tamed by secular power.

    Indeed. Or, to put it slightly differently, Christianity was psychopathically murderous of nonconformists (within and without) until about 1700 years after its founding. Islam has been around for about 1400 years, and is on a faster track than Christianity in that regard.

  181. Jenos Idanian says:

    @stonetools: This week , a “culturally” Muslim couple, for reasons of their own, attacked another health facility and killed a bunch more people. What matters is not why they did, but how they did.

    I’ll be generous here and assume you’re ignorant. This guy wasn’t a “cultural” Muslim, he was described by those who knew him best as a very devout Muslim. In his own father’s words: He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

    If you wanna downplay the shooter’s devotion to his faith, feel free. But you’re right on the border of whitewashing it — if you haven’t already.

    BTW, the guy bought the guns he used four years ago, in perfectly legal purchases. It’s not known yet if he bought them from a dealer or in a private sale, but there was absolutely nothing in his background that would have kept him from passing a backgorund check.

    So, why are you pushing this measure that wouldn’t have changed a goddamned thing here? Do you feel so impotent about this that you have to do SOMETHING, even if it wouldn’t have actually made a single goddamned difference?

    Sorry, your fears and insecurities don’t trump others’ rights.

  182. michael reynolds says:

    @stonetools:

    I just had the oddest experience. I thought this comment was from Jenos because he’s the comment directly above. And I thought, my God, Jenos is talking rationally. He’s making sense.

    So it was with a mix of embarrassment and sadness that I realized it was you.

    In any case. Yes, guns are the nexus of the problem domestically. What do Islamic terrorists, abortion terrorists, workplace shooters, school shooters and gangsters all have in common? It’s not ideology or motivation, it’s guns.

    In terms of this country, domestically? The enemy is guns.

  183. Jenos Idanian says:

    BTW, the Department of Homeland Security assures us that they have very thorough and rigorous screening processes for detecting threats.

    The immigrant shooter passed that screening.

  184. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: “The enemy is guns.”

    Oh, look, the tool is mad at tools. But michael might have a point.

    Nah.

    Perhaps we can deal with the rape epidemic by banning penises…

  185. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Yep.

    This would be an example of why I thought it was stupid politics for Mr. Obama not to call for a pause in accepting refugees.

    I could write the political attack ad against Hillary in ten seconds.

  186. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: But she apparently wasn’t a “refugee.” She came to the US under a fiancee visa. But Homeland Security did vouch her.

  187. Jenos Idanian says:

    @michael reynolds: Theoretically, I ought to like it when Obama does politically stupid things. But in reality, they end up with Americans being killed, injured, or needlessly endangered far too often.

  188. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Shouldn’t you be spending your evening gazing worshipfully at a picture of George Zimmermann?

  189. Jenos Idanian says:

    @anjin-san: Shouldn’t you be turning in your guns before you, like so many other white people, go off on a racist rampage and start killing people?

  190. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: When discussing the Founding Fathers and guns, there’s something very important to keep in mind: the guns of the era kind of sucked.

    You wouldn’t really be able to do a mass shooting with muskets and muzzle-loaded pistols, as you would need to bring a crapload of them with you.

    Today, you can get a small, portable stockpile, and immediately have the ability to kill a whole bunch of people. Magazine loading weapons and revolvers cut the time between shots down to where the targets cannot react fast enough.

    We don’t really know whether the Founding Fathers would have approved of the average citizen having the right to be able to kill a dozen of their fellow citizens in a few moments (not the right to kill them, just the right to be able to kill them). It is so far from the world that they lived in that we cannot reliably speculate.

    Well, Madison would have wanted you to be able to wipe out an entire city*, and would probably be upset that you don’t have access to nuclear weapons. But as for the rest of them, there is nothing to suggest that they would have made the same tradeoffs with modern weapons as they did with weapons of their time.

    * and he would want you to face a fair and reasonable jury afterwards — he wasn’t a monster or anything.

  191. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Maybe someday you will come up with an actual snappy comeback – don’t give up.

  192. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Dude. There is an actual 1792 law passed by Congress regulating the militia.

    On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

    This backs up my point all the way that by “well regulated militia” they meant not only a body of men who would be subject to military discipline, but also that a body of men who would be regulated as to HOW they were armed. Now this should shut you up for all time if you had any sense of shame, but you did ask me about the law, so let me continue.
    The first thing we should note is that thanks to pre-existing laws, the attackers didn’t have access to even deadlier weapons. Thanks to the Miller Act , they didn’t have fully automatic weapons. Thanks to California law, they didn’t have the large 30 round magazines or 100 round drums for their assault rifles. Most of all, because civilians can’t buy modern military explosives on the open market, they had to make do with ineffectual home made bombs instead of using something like the very easy to use and effective C-4 for bombs. As horrible as the death toll is, it could have been much worse.

    As to better laws, I like the Canadian model that would have required that gun buyers undergo training by a police certified instructor. That would have provided an extra level of screening that quite possibly would have caught a mentally unstable person like Dear or Farrook. It seems to work for Canada-they have very few mass shootings.

  193. Pch101 says:

    Article 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Article 2 Section 2:

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

    Federalist 29:

    It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.”
    ____________

    I can see how those who talk a lot about the Constitution while knowing nothing about it might have missed these.

  194. Guarneri says:

    “When did you become opposed to police murdering black people?”

    Inane, but not unexpected.

    Carry on.

  195. Guarneri says:

    “When did you become opposed to police murdering black people?”

    Inane, but not unexpected.

    Carry on.

  196. Guarneri says:

    “When did you become opposed to police murdering black people?”

    Inane, but not unexpected.

    Carry on.

  197. Guarneri says:

    “When did you become opposed to police murdering black people?”

    Inane. But not unexpected.

    Carry on.

  198. Tyrell says:

    The third suspect – what happened ?

  199. Tyrell says:

    The third suspect – what happened ?

  200. C. Clavin says:

    I see that Jenos has shown up to rant about maybe a so-called islamic radical terrorist.
    He was no where to be heard from when the discussion was about a christian radical terrorist.
    Islamaphobia. Homophobia. Any phobias you are not susceptible to?

  201. C. Clavin says:

    @bill:

    the muslims you defend

    please show me where i defend muslims? anyone who spends time wishing on an infinitely old, infinitly powerful, totally omniscient being for whom there is no proof is a fool; muslim, christian, jew, whatever. what i have not done is single out muslims over christians…who are far more likely to kill one of us. what i have done is point out is the rank bigotry of those who are quick to condemn an entire religion because of brown skinned terrorists, but give a complete pass to christians in spite of white skinned terrorists.
    and then of course…there are the pathological gun masturbators.

  202. gVOR08 says:

    @Stan: Private gun ownership imposes huge externalities on society. How much does medical care for the quarter million people shot every year cost society? How much police overtime is being paid in San Bernadino and Colorado Springs as we speak? A Pigovian tax on gun purchases makes huge sense.

    Externalities create distortions and malfunctions in markets. Conservatives should see it as their duty to correct the market distortion. But how far was your tongue in your cheek when you wrote of conservatives that they

    … would be happy at …the possibility of lowering their tax rates.

  203. An Interested Party says:

    Theoretically, I ought to like it when Obama does politically stupid things. But in reality, they end up with Americans being killed, injured, or needlessly endangered far too often.

    Hmm…I wonder if Obama is as responsible for at least 7000+ deaths (9/11 & Iraq) as his not so illustrious predecessor was…

  204. Monala says:

    @michael reynolds: It’s very possible she passed Homeland Security’s screening because there was no evidence she was a risk at that time, and she only became radicalized by her husband after she was living in the U.S.

  205. Monala says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “Cultural” Muslim was a poor choice of words for stonetools, because it is clear from the information coming out that Farook was very religious. By the same token, however, it’s clear that that Dear is also very religious and not just a “cultural” Christian. I think stonetools’ point was that, religious differences aside, the two share much in common.

  206. Monala says:

    @JKB: you’re being ridiculous. Islam and Christianity are both proselytizing religions, and many, many conservative Christians, even among the Republican presidential candidates, talk about trying to get people to believe as they do.

  207. Grewgills says:

    @Monala:
    Funny how one of those was singled out and the other ignored