San Bernadine Shooting

[Turbo3000]

Australia....the land where most videos are banned because the government decided it was in your best interest.

Australia:
Estimated illegal drug business of 6.7 billion

Spending 1.7 billion a year 2013 to combat illegal drugs with 1.1 million of that going towards law enforcement and 361 million going towards treatment programs. Lol. Yeah those drug laws sure are working on your fucking island. Who is getting rich off the drug laws? Cartels, politicians, medical industry, and law enforcement entities.

[lipripper]

On Tuesday, President Obama stunned Americans and French alike with his false claims about gun violence in America. "I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” claimed Obama. It is a claim that he has continually repeated over the years.

Talk about being self-absorbed.

The French have witnessed three mass public shootings this year. January saw two attacks, one on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and another on a Paris supermarket.

In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.

Obama also overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe. Germany had two of these — one in 2002 at Erfut and another in 2009 at Winnenden, with a total death toll of 34.

Obama isn’t correct even if he meant the frequency of fatalities or attacks. Many European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders. It’s simply a matter of adjusting for America’s much larger population.

Let’s look at mass public shootings from 2009 to the middle of June this year. To compare fairly with American shootings, I excluded attacks that might be better classified as struggles over sovereignty. For instance, I did not count the 22 people killed in the Macedonian town of Kumanovo last month.

Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13. The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.

In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people. Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.

There are two other studies on these questions that have gotten a fair amount of attention.

One, by State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass, who look at shootings across countries, has left out a large number of shootings in other countries.

Yet, despite the extensive news coverage their study has received, they miss a lot of cases. For example, in France, they miss three mass public shootings:

— Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.

— Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.

— Toulouse, France, March 19, 2012, Mohammed Merah killed four people (the killer also killed people in Montauban, France).

Other cases are missed in such countries as Austria, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia.

It takes a lot of time and effort to find all the cases, but if you get all the attacks in the U.S. and miss those in other countries, it makes the U.S. look a lot worse.

Another by Lankford reportedly goes back to 1966, but while he shares his study with reporters, he requires that they don’t share it with researchers in the area and, despite the wide publicity given his findings, he has repeatedly turned down requests by myself to see his research.

The president’s statement was also limited in another sense. He was referring only to shootings in his statement, but bombs are frequently used elsewhere in the world.

The Boston Marathon bombing was a rare exception these days in the United States. But countries such as Russia have frequently suffered bombings. Indeed, since 2009, the nation has seen 1.31 deaths per million from bombings that caused four or more fatalities.

Between 2007 and 2011, there was an average of 6,282 terrorist attacks per year outside of Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. On average, more than 27,000 people were killed, injured or kidnapped each year.

Obama keeps using these attacks to advocate requiring background checks on private transfers of guns. Such a requirement, however, already exists in France and almost all of Europe.

The background checks failed. So, too, did France and Belgium’s complete bans on the weapons used in those attacks. The terrorists who attacked those countries still got the weapons that they wanted.

Of the people stopped by background checks, nearly all are people who should have been allowed to buy guns. These delays may be mere inconveniences for most people, but they can endanger the lives of people who are being stalked and need immediate protection.

There is another common factor between mass public shootings. Virtually all of the attacks in America and Europe are taking place where general citizens can’t carry guns for protection. At some point, it has to become apparent to gun control advocates that gun-free zones only protect the killers.

Can Obama actually believe his claim that these attacks “just doesn’t happen in other countries”? More likely, Obama is willing to go to any extreme as he pushes for European-type gun control. The last thing he wants to admit is that countries with such strict gun-control laws can have so many deadly attacks.

[Turbo3000]

Obama ordering flags lowered due to the GUN VIOLENCE in Cali??? People actually think this government is looking out for our best interests?

Let's tiptoe around what it really was...............

[Bouncer]

This just proves you are a fucking idiot.

Do you understand what a drug dealer is? Yes

Do you understand what a cartel is? Yes

Do you understand the biggest source of funding for a large majority of criminal organizations? Well it's not just drugs but ok

Do you think they could operate if drugs were legal? So you are saying abolish drug laws?? Why avoid the questions. Why are you ashamed to say that's what you mean? You are saying that everyone should have access to rec drugs?

No I don't think you do understand, saying yes without explanation is like a child that shit his diaper and shakes his head no when asked.

Gun restrictions would work as well as drug restrictions do in America. Our black market is bigger than your entire economy.

And yes drugs should be legalized. You can't understand why and that's ok, nobody ever accused you of being brilliant.

Mr.I actually agrees when it comes to drugs but the point isn't convenient to his gun point so he stays silent. Scrum as well. They understand the criminal empire that has been built upon the bases of illegal drugs.

[chuckz28]

I don't get this. Every person I personally know in America has shown the deepest sympathy and support when France was attacked and in return when the same happens on our soil the world puts blame is on us and our gun laws. Nobody blamed France and their lack of gun control.

Sorry but when we are attacked whether by crazies, radicals, terrorists or whatever, the last thing I want to do is put my safety in the government's hand. It only encourages me to brush up on my firearm skills and have even more situational awareness and preparedness.

[lipripper]

Another PRIME example of a "feel good law" trying to be passed for gun control... PLEASE explaine how this bullcrap will stop any violence from a LAW abiding citizen???? oh but of course it will be a huge fucking hassle to them to do what is perfectly leagle.. How will any of this..stop a sick fuck please explane Im really not understanding? I must be too goddamn simple minded..



A proposed bill in Missouri would make buying a gun as difficult as getting an abortion

In the US state of Missouri it’s easy to buy a gun and hard to get an abortion. A new state bill filed on Dec. 1 proposes making the two equally difficult, according to the Missouri Times. (The bill should be available here but has been difficult to access online on Dec. 3). Among its requirements that mirror the state’s restrictions on obtaining an abortion:
Buyers must review alternatives to purchasing a firearm (including peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution) and medical risks associated with firearms (including photographs of fatal firearm injuries) with the dealer, orally and in writing.
At least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun, prospective gun owners must meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership, and obtain a written notice from the doctor.
The gun must be purchased from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles (193 kilometers) from the purchaser’s legal residence. (That’s the average distance women must travel in Missouri to obtain an abortion).
Buyers must watch a half-hour video about fatal firearm injuries.
Buyers must meet with two local faith leaders who have officiated (within the past year) a funeral for a young (under 18) gun violence victim, and with two families who have been victims of gun violence.
On a weekend between 10 pm and 6 am, when gun violence victims are present, buyers must tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital, and get written verification from a doctor.

Lawmaker Stacey Newman, a Democrat, proposed the bill to more or less make a point. Having served in state legislature since 2009—with a focus on preventing gun violence and defending women’s reproductive rights—she knows the bill is unlikely to get through the state’s Republican-controlled legislature. But, she said, “If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life,’ then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities’ rising rates of gun violence.”

Missouri ranks among the top five US states in rates of gun deaths, and ranks first in the US in toddlers shooting themselves or others.

[Bouncer]

Christ rippers talking about abortions now. Someone shot me with an illegal in California assault rifle. ;)

[lipripper]

Christ rippers talking about abortions now. Someone shot me with an illegal in California assault rifle. ;)

funny how this dumb bitch relates gun violence with abortion and wants the laws to mirror each other...how the fuck will this stop some gang banger from shooting another with an illeagle obtained gun for a fucking nickel bag:rofl::rofl::rofl: fucking simple minded liberal assholes..

[Bouncer]

I just want to make a point about how easy it is to get illegal weapons. When I lived in Jersey I knew a few people that lived in Brighton Beach NY. For those who don't know, Brighton has a huge Russian population. One day I was talking to one of them who I had become friends with at the gym. Long story short, he sold weapons as a side business and he showed me 3 ak-47's and 2 other guns that looked just like ak-47's only they were smaller. He had these weapons in the back of his SUV in the gym parking lot..

I think people like scrum that talk about restrictions don't actually understand that side of things. The power and scope of the black market. Here I am a white kid in jersey that knows nothing about guns and yet I could have bought one out of a car had I been interested.

[lipripper]

I just want to make a point about how easy it is to get illegal weapons. When I lived in Jersey I knew a few people that lived in Brighton Beach NY. For those who don't know, Brighton has a huge Russian population. One day I was talking to one of them who I had become friends with at the gym. Long story short, he sold weapons as a side business and he showed me 3 ak-47's and 2 other guns that looked just like ak-47's only they were smaller. He had these weapons in the back of his SUV in the gym parking lot..

I think people like scrum that talk about restrictions don't actually understand that side of things. The power and scope of the black market. Here I am a white kid in jersey that knows nothing about guns and yet I could have bought one out of a car had I been interested.

yep..but they talk about making new gun laws...like its gonna stop criminals and sick fucks. It simply just don't work, look at france.. no need to look any further.. but they cant or wont admit it...just wanna take the big bad black machine gun/ or pistol away from mom and pops that do no wrong...

[StanG]

I really do believe Gun Control would have zero impact- yes.
The criminals committing crimes involving guns are not doing so with legally registered and obtained firearms. They are doing so with stolen and /or illegally obtained firearms. No amount of gumn control will stop this.
As has been said strcter drug laws have done absolutely nothing to curb the availability of drugs, the same would hold true with firearms.
All gun control would do is limit the law abiding citizen from obtaining firearms. Great idea, so now the people that would not use a firearm to break the law cannot legally obtain one yet the criminals means for obtaining said weapon remains unimpeded. How on earth does this help accomplish anything at all? If anything it does make the Law Abiding citizen more vulnerable as his ability to protect himself is being restricted or reduced while nothing at all is being done to limit or reduce the criminals means to obtains firearms. If you want to focus on guns and use resources to somehow restrict them, focus on the restriction of ILLEGAL & ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.

[Bouncer]

I really do believe Gun Control would have zero impact- yes.
The criminals committing crimes involving guns are not doing so with legally registered and obtained firearms. They are doing so with stolen and /or illegally obtained firearms. No amount of gumn control will stop this.
As has been said strcter drug laws have done absolutely nothing to curb the availability of drugs, the same would hold true with firearms.
All gun control would do is limit the law abiding citizen from obtaining firearms. Great idea, so now the people that would not use a firearm to break the law cannot legally obtain one yet the criminals means for obtaining said weapon remains unimpeded. How on earth does this help accomplish anything at all? If anything it does make the Law Abiding citizen more vulnerable as his ability to protect himself is being restricted or reduced while nothing at all is being done to limit or reduce the criminals means to obtains firearms. If you want to focus on guns and use resources to somehow restrict them, focus on the restriction of ILLEGAL & ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.

agree with your points but it must be said that some of the recent mass shootings actually have been done with guns that were legally obtained and registered.

[Scrumhalf]

I think people like scrum that talk about restrictions don't actually understand that side of things. The power and scope of the black market. Here I am a white kid in jersey that knows nothing about guns and yet I could have bought one out of a car had I been interested.

Bro, don't talk to me like I am a 16 yo gen X kid in high school. Unlike most of you (Beast not included), I have extensive experience living and working in countries other than the US, including 3rd world countries. You think I don't know how the black market operates? You are talking to someone who has lived for years in places where the only way to get things is on the black market, the only way to get things done is with bribes.

This conversation has run its course. This country has a real problem with ideology trumping compromise. Wake up, guys. America is not necessarily the best at everything, even if the flag wavers insist it is. There are things we can learn from others. And gun violence is something others have figured out how to minimize.

There are always going to be instances that cannot be stopped, no matter what laws you put in. But to claim that just because we cannot get 100% safety, we shouldn't do anything, is being intellectually dishonest.

As an engineer used to solving problems, it is infuriating to hear this conversation. I always tell the guys who work for me "Don't tell me what can't be done. I don't need a team of PhD engineers to tell me what I can't do. Tell me how we are going to solve the problem." And all I am hearing right now is how something cannot be done. No solutions. Because apparently, our country is so unique that nothing that works anywhere else will ever work here, not to solve 100% of gun violence but even 20% or 30% or 50%.

We are an embarrassment, guys. I don't know if you fully comprehend this. I've read the international papers and talked to many people in the developing world and the overwhelming sentiment is this - how come you guys who can invent the microprocessor and put a man on the moon, can't figure out how to take some simple steps to keep your people safe? And I have no answers for them.

I love my country, but I am resigned to keep having these incidents, orders of magnitude higher than any other country in the world, while we all retreat to our ideological corners and talk past each other.

[Bouncer]

Scrum, your solution isn't one. See Prohibition and "The war on drugs" as the perfect case study. Your solution will do nothing to prevent bad people from getting guns in the same way drug laws do nothing to prevent druggies like me from getting drugs.

[StanG]

agree with your points but it must be said that some of the recent mass shootings actually have been done with guns that were legally obtained and registered.

All in the spirit of a good debate Im glad you brought that up.
While this in fact may very well be true the point is the crimes would be committed regardless of that fact. If the people are determined to commit such acts the weapons could and would be illegally obtained to do so or other means of violence (IED's) could be used in lieu of firearms.
The point is in my mind the issue is the people, not the hardware used to commit the atrocity. If one is willing to break the law to such a degree by committing mass murder they surely have no issue purchasing a firearm illegally to do so.
I cant help but think in these situations lets say an individual with a concealed carry permit had their snub-nose 357 mag when they see johnny mass murderer whip out his AK. Once he raises the ak and begins firing Mr Legally Armed American Citizen pumps a 357 mag into his back. Instead of 14 dead we are now looking at 2 dead. I would like to think were I present in such a scenario and had the opportunity I would have the presence of mind as well as the courage required to take out my .380 and shoot the guy dead.
Lets play so called devils advocate for just a moment and consider this: Perhaps the greatest deterrent to all of these mass shootings is in fact MORE legally armed US citizens, lets ponder that for a moment. Another point to possibly consider.