We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

_

NorthReport

San Bernardino, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

 

What's it going to take for people to come to their senses, eh!  Frown

NorthReport
NorthReport

Thank you mass media. Thank you gun nuts. 

After the San Bernardino Shooting, Three Approaches to Gun Violence

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/after-the-san-bernardino-shootin...

NorthReport

PS Looks like police might already have captured or cornered the San Bernardino suspects.

NorthReport

History of San Bernardino, California

Redevelopment and decline[edit]

During the 60s, the Inland Center Mall opened, drawing business away from downtown. Interstate 15 (now I-215) bifurcated the town in a way the railroad had not. Because of the railroad right-of-way, motorists could only exit west with great difficulty. Mount Vernon Avenue, which had flourished as part of the interstate Route 66, started to decay.

Urban renewal in the sixties caused the once center of town, Third Street to be gutted and replaced with the Central City Mall. Harris Company, which had opened in 1905, and opened a grand building in 1927 was one anchor, J.C. Penney’s and Montgomery Wards were the two other anchors.

San Bernardino City Hall building designed by César Pelli.

Mayor Al Ballard made headlines when he equipped city fire trucks with shotguns in response to the Watts Riots in Los Angeles, in which shots were fired at fire trucks extinguishing flames.

California State University, San Bernardino opened in 1965. According to former mayor Bob Holcomb, the city getting the CSU campus was a concrete outcome of a successful fight with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), of which San Bernardino was a founding member. It withdrew in the 1940s after plans to route the Colorado River Aqueduct through the Cajon Pass were changed to route the aqueduct through the San Gorgonio Pass in Riverside County, and was subsequently successfully sued by Orange County over the amount of water it was using. After convincing the city that it had enough groundwater to resist political pressure to rejoin the MWD, Holcomb was appointed chairman of the waterboard in 1949, and Secombe Lake was unplugged to prove that San Bernardino had enough groundwater to sustain further growth. As Holcolm said in a 2002 interview,

...As it got closer and closer to select a site for the college, the city wasn't even going to... try, and the Chamber of Commerce, I went to the Chamber of Commerce and asked them to, you know, for a committee and let's get a college in San Bernardino... They still said we don't have the water, you know, and this was after the city had voted down MWD... I said, 'You have plenty of water.' No, so anyway, my job, I formed my own committee to bring the state college. My primary job was to convince the state that we had the water and get the water problem off the agenda so that it wouldn't shoot us down like everyone thought it would. ...We... got the three or four large land owners controlled all the land out there... to agree on a very reasonable price for their land and I got options from them that they would sell, you know, if the state selected San Bernardino. Got the city to lay out the road system 

and to engineer the sewer system and engineer the water system and then so all this was- and then they did all the testing that you'd normally for a developing of university- like soil tests. We had all those things done and we had a private engineering firm do a lot of work that would be normally done by the state. The board of trustees was meeting, I think was up in San Jose to, and that would be one of the items on the agenda was to select a site. So, I went up to the meeting. ...And I said, 'One thing, we have plenty of water. We can give you all the water you need.' I... showed them how the water thing was okay... And so the rest of it was slam dunk... The president of the state- the state college boards was an architect by the name of, I think, Charles Leckmen... He says, ...there's no competition. San Bernardino is so far a head of all the other sites that, that we don't have to worry about how much it's going to cost, we don't have to worry about where the roads are going to go, and so they voted that day to put it here- San Bernardino.[2]

In the 70s, Hospitality Lane was first developed in the southern extreme of San Bernardino south of the Santa Ana River, north of the 10 freeway. This put additional pressure on downtown, a factor that continues to today, but allows San Bernardino to compete regionally for office space and tax dollars.

In 1977, the City was named an "All-America" City.

The Hampshire flood took out forty homes in January 1980. In November 1980, the Panorama fire devastated the City's northern hills; in 2003 the Old Fire caused even more damage spanning from the eastern to the western borders. The San Bernardino train disaster occurred in 1989 when a train derailed on Duffy Street, followed a few days later by an explosion on a nearby pipe.

Steve Wozniak, the co-creator of Apple Computer, held the US Festival at the Glen Helen Regional Park (in Devore) in 1982, and then again in 1983. The County of San Bernardino would later build the Blockbuster Pavilion (today, the Hyundai Pavilion) at this site.

Norton Air Force Base officially closed in 1994, an event which caused the loss of 10,000 military and civilian jobs. Renamed San Bernardino International Airport, it had no scheduled airline service and handled mostly air freight. Coupled with the recession of the early 1990s, the closing of Kaiser Steel in 1985, and Santa Fe Railroad's relocation of jobs to Topeka caused San Bernardino's economy to slide. Civic pride was further wounded when gangs pushed by LAPD suppression in Los Angeles relocated to San Bernardino. The early 1990s saw San Bernardino's crime rate increase as middle class, especially those employed at the large employers or in support of their workers, moved away.

The late 1990s to the early 2000s saw a slight upturn in fortune for San Bernardino. The City built a minor league ballpark south of downtown. Arrowhead Credit Union became a regional credit union banking leader and intended to build its new headquarters in the City. Stater Bros. Markets, a Fortune 1000 supermarket, began 

construction mid 2006 on a large scale distribution plant to replace the existing Grand Terrace location. Hillwood Corporation helped bring large warehouses, including those of Mattel, and Pep Boys, to the former base and its environs. The Hub project, an extension of Hospitality Lane, opened in 2004 and 2005. Live touring theater returned to the California Theater. Though outside the City and owned by the County, The Blockbuster (later Hyundai, now Glen Helen) Pavilion brought national touring acts to San Bernardino.

Recent history[edit]

In 2012 San Bernardino filed for chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Judge Patrick J. Morris defeated City Attorney James F. Penman in a run-off for Mayor in early 2006. Judge Morris instituted a program called "Operation Phoenix" covering a twenty-block area of central city. The program was intended to prevent crime in a  high-crime area using suppression and social services.

In June, 2006, the City Council defeated a measure to fly a large flag purchased after 9/11 on certain legal holidays on City Hall by a vote of 4-3. The measure had failed on a 3-3 tie (with one councilmember absent) in May, 2006. The City continues to fly two regular flags in front of and on top of City Hall.

An initiative circulated by Save Our State leader Joseph Turner regarding that illegal immigration was sent to the electorate. According to the impartial analysis prepared by the City Attorney's Office, much of the initiative, even if passed, would have probably been ruled unconstitutional or would have been preempted by federal or state law. Later, Superior Court Judge A. Rex Victor disqualified the measure from the ballot after the City filed a declaratory relief action based on a challenge by local attorney Florentino ("Tino") Garza. The court ruled that Turner had not gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure. Turner, acting on the advice of City Clerk Rachel Clark-Mendoza, had based the number on the 2001 mayoral election (in which Judith Valles ran unopposed), instead of the 2005 mayoral election (which was contested). After the defeat, Turner vowed to bring a new, harsher measure to the ballot, and he mounted an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to replace Clark-Mendoza, herself, as City Clerk by arguing that her alleged incompetence and/or corruption resulted in: uncollected tax revenues; unlicensed home rentals; and, absentee landlords that were lowering property values across the entire city.

 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Bernardino,_California

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
Thank you gun nuts.

It's probably more accurate to say nuts with guns are involved in this latest disaster.  That way you wouldn't be implying that gun ownership = nuts, hence 'gun nuts.'  Because not everyone is you know.

Paladin1

California is very close to being one of the most restrictive US states in terms of gun control. 

 

NorthReport

What a individual state does is irrelevant. A national gun control progrom, confiscation of the firearms, and a shut down of the sensationalist media coverage would do wonders. It's not rocket science.

 

San Bernardino attack according to FBI spokesperson, they are not ruling out terorism, although they are not suggested it either.

2 suspects dead: a man and a woman. A third person has been detained. 

Slumberjack

A person could argue that publicizing atrocities like this could eventually lead toward a more effective gun control program, and that to sanitize things in the media for the sake of the polite audiences, or to deter like minded publicity seekers, doesn't actually provide the public with the information they will eventually need to consider vis-a-vis reasonable gun control mechanisms.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

What a individual state does is irrelevant. A national gun control progrom, confiscation of the firearms, and a shut down of the sensationalist media coverage would do wonders. It's not rocket science.

Too ingrained into their society and psyche. Trying to confiscate all their firearms would lead to an incredible amount of gun battles and deaths both civilian and LEO.

NorthReport

And this is not rocket science either. Plain and simple: it is the NRA.

Why we're still debating guns in 2015

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/opinions/opinion-roundup-gun-control-2015/...

NorthReport

Shooting in San Bernardino Kills at Least 14, Wounds 17

Investigators believe that one of the gunman had worked at the facility and recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials. A witness has told police that although the gunmen had their faces covered, one of them sounded and appeared very similar to an employee who had left the facility earlier in the day. “They had their appearances covered but a witness believed it had been someone who worked there,” the official said.

Chief Burguan and other law enforcement officials declined to speculate on the identity of the gunmen.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?hp&act...

NorthReport

Sorry but they are gun nuts. Anyone who thinks their right to bearing arms is more important than preventing these mass killing tragedies is absolutely nuts. 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Sorry but they are gun nuts. Anyone who thinks their right to bearing arms is more important than preventing these mass killing tragedies is absolutely nuts. 

Exactly - and not only that. Gun nuts are abject cowards. Ban the guns, and they'll fold like a cheap suit. Guns are their only method of achieving orgasm.

But don't expect the U.S. to impose gun control of any kind any time soon. It will never happen due to internal causes in that brutal and murderous society. Change in the U.S. will only come from outside. Like, when they went down to defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese people. That was beautiful to see.

Also, keep this in mind: If they're only killing each other, they can't do too much harm to the rest of the world's people.

 

NorthReport

Federal law enforcement source: Gunman believed to be U.S. citizen

The lead gunman connected to the mass shooting in San Bernardino is believed to be a U.S. citizen, according to a federal law enforcement source speaking on condition of anonymity.

The source added that links to international terrorism are still on the table, however, as the assailants could have been encouraged by a foreign terror group.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live...

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Guns are their only method of achieving orgasm.

 

Please refer to it as a wargasim

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Anyone who thinks their right to bearing arms is more important than preventing these mass killing tragedies is absolutely nuts.

That's a false dichotomy.

For most gun owners, turning their guns over to police is going to prevent shootings the same way that turning their kitchen knives over to police is going to prevent stabbings.

Convince the CRIMINALS to hand over their guns (and knives) if you want results.

NorthReport

San Bernardino shooting live updates: Syed Farook named as a suspect in attack that killed 14

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live...

NorthReport

Eveyone needs to give up their weapons as we are not responsible enough to have them. 

takeitslowly

california is a democrats state, and it has the strictest gun control already, doesnt it? It also tend to have the most number of mass shootings.

NorthReport

It also has the most number of people. Jeesh!

NorthReport

Agreed!

Connecticut senator has had enough of 'thoughts' and 'prayers'

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/san-bernardino-chris-murphy-conne...

Hurtin Albertan

California has pretty strict gun laws but I do not think that they are the strictist in the US.  Think that goes to New York or maybe Hawaii, not having much luck finding links that work on Bradycampaign.org for some reason.

In my opinion passing stronger and stronger gun control laws doesn't ever seem to accomplish much, if it accompishes anythiong at all, but I'll also admit that could well be my confirmation bias at work.

Finally, as a proud Ammosexual I must say I find a lot of comments in this thread hurtful and triggering.

 

 

NorthReport

San Bernardino struggled with hate groups, homicides and gangs before mass shooting 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/san-bernardino-struggled-hate-grou...

NorthReport

When gun nuts, and there is no other way to describe these sick people, put their personal hobbies ahead of other people's lives, these nuts don't deserve one second of consideration. It is time to start calling these people what they actually are.

NorthReport

President Obama calls for gun law changes, hours after House Republicans block debate on bill

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-calls-gun-law-calif-shoot...

NorthReport

Horror in San Bernardino: The U.S. infatuation with guns is bordering on a society-wide suicidal impulse

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-san-bernardino-20151203-...

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
Eveyone needs to give up their weapons as we are not responsible enough to have them.

You and others might not be responsible.  My suggestion to the irresponsible is that they see to their own shortcomings.  There is nothing wrong per se with owning a gun.  Society itself is what breeds violent criminals.  Too often violent criminals are elected as leaders, just as they occupy CEO positions in the major corporations, particularly those who manufacture the latest killing ware.  We are inundated on a daily basis with information that tells us the mass killing of innocent people is justified because some 'wider' purpose dictates that it must be so.  All of our mainstream sources of information engage in fabricating and perpetuating this lie, every waking day.  I find it's a grotesque obfuscation that points to the vacuity of our times to put it all down to guns and their owners.  It's like saying terrorism is the fault of Muslims.

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Eveyone needs to give up their weapons as we are not responsible enough to have them.

You and others might not be responsible.  My suggestion to the irresponsible is that they see to their own shortcomings.  There is nothing wrong per se with owning a gun.  Society itself is what breeds violent criminals.  Too often violent criminals are elected as leaders, just as they occupy CEO positions in the major corporations, particularly those who manufacture the latest killing ware.  We are inundated on a daily basis with information that tells us the mass killing of innocent people is justified because some 'wider' purpose dictates that it must be so.  All of our mainstream sources of information engage in fabricating and perpetuating this lie, every waking day.  I find it's a grotesque obfuscation that points to the vacuity of our times to put it all down to guns and their owners.  It's like saying terrorism is the fault of Muslims.

Professionals who have guns ae dangerous enough -- we can see what police killings we ahve seen. However, we can at least demand better controls over those who have that responsibility including mental health evaluations and the suitability of candidates (to try to reduce the number of overt racists from these positions).

But the general population is not subjected to the kind of evaluation, mental health monitoring that we should expect from police. A society that has such widespread public ownership of guns is more dangerous. The mass shootings get the headlines, individual murders less so and suicides even less. The toll of gun ownership by the public is huge.

We know that rural long gun ownership is part of the culture but the private ownership of pistols, semi-automatics and automatics are not for rural and sport use.

The culture of violence is directly linked to the permissive approach to having such weapons -- I do not see how you separate the two. Long term questions about the culture must be asked but short term availability of these weapons has got to be one of the answers -- unless the value of holding a gun is more than the value of the people in your community. And if that is the case then no respect for the coutnry is deserved.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

When gun nuts, and there is no other way to describe these sick people, put their personal hobbies ahead of other people's lives, these nuts don't deserve one second of consideration. It is time to start calling these people what they actually are.

Funny that's the same view I take on people who practice religion, we found common ground! :)

Paladin1

 

 

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

California has pretty strict gun laws but I do not think that they are the strictist in the US.  Think that goes to New York or maybe Hawaii, not having much luck finding links that work on Bradycampaign.org for some reason.

In my opinion passing stronger and stronger gun control laws doesn't ever seem to accomplish much, if it accompishes anythiong at all, but I'll also admit that could well be my confirmation bias at work.

Detroit had some pretty restrictive gun laws but it looks like those are changing with a view to citizens being allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves.

The thing with stronger gun control in the context that many people seem to push for is that it will effect people like you and me. People who will obey the rules not because we like them or agree but because we are law abiding. You can't have 15 bullets in a magazine, only 10. Lots of studies and historical evidence shows that this doesn't save lives BUT it makes people pushing for stricter gun control feel better.

 

NorthReport wrote:

President Obama calls for gun law changes, hours after House Republicans block debate on bill

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-calls-gun-law-calif-shoot...

President Obama is the best gun salesmen the US has had in a very long time.

NorthReport

Sick!

Guns used in shooting were bought legally, says federal official

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/san-bernardino-suspects-1.3348412

NorthReport

Couple Kept Tight Lid on Plans for San Bernardino Shooting

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting-syed-rizwan...

NorthReport

  This will come up today at work ... so let's hear it. What do you think? #NYDailyNews

Embedded image permalink

  1. Mopshell ‏@Mopshell  13m13 minutes ago

    @calmsnbc At long last! Someone in the U.S. media has the balls to write the truth. It's time to determine an action plan. #NYDailyNews

     0 retweets0 likes Reply  Retweet   Like    More

  2. Andrew Fordham ‏@ajf7777  15s15 seconds ago

    @calmsnbc amazing that this society hates good & embraces evil & yet is upset when God gives them over to the evil they desire.

     0 retweets0 likes Reply  Retweet  Like  More

 

https://twitter.com/calmsnbc/status/672408872951263232/photo/1?ref_src=t...

Slumberjack

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Professionals who have guns ae dangerous enough -- we can see what police killings we ahve seen. However, we can at least demand better controls over those who have that responsibility including mental health evaluations and the suitability of candidates (to try to reduce the number of overt racists from these positions).

I don't think we have to be aligned with opinions that say everyone should be able to acquire a gun irrespective of any considerations that might sensibly preclude ownership.  Nor is it necessary to support the anti-gun registration lobby to conclude that there is no particular problem with owning guns.  I'm good with registering all variant, and restricting in certain cases large capacity magazines and automatic weapon ownership.  For those intent on committing extreme acts of violence where they have multiple casualties in mind, not being able to acquire a gun for that purpose is likely not the disencentive people make it out to be.

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Professionals who have guns ae dangerous enough -- we can see what police killings we ahve seen. However, we can at least demand better controls over those who have that responsibility including mental health evaluations and the suitability of candidates (to try to reduce the number of overt racists from these positions).

I don't think we have to be aligned with opinions that say everyone should be able to acquire a gun irrespective of any considerations that might sensibly preclude ownership.  Nor is it necessary to support the anti-gun registration lobby to conclude that there is no particular problem with owning guns.  I'm good with registering all variant, and restricting in certain cases large capacity magazines and automatic weapon ownership.  For those intent on committing extreme acts of violence where they have multiple casualties in mind, not being able to acquire a gun for that purpose is likely not the disencentive people make it out to be.

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

Good point about China -- let's look more closely: it took 10 people with knives working together to kill 29. With the right gun one person could do it alone. With knife attacks there are a lot of injured people but not that many die. At Sandy Hook one person with a gun killed 27 compared to 10 with knives killing 29. Yep, guns are more effective killing machines. I assume that is not news.

Of course removing guns is not a "disencentive" it is more about making it harder. As well many poeple would not be able to presume that they could do this with a knife but they can wiith a gun. If they want to go out in a blaze of glory the gun is more likely to attract. If they want to survive, that too.

 

NorthReport

Let's make sure the people who are really responsible the Republicans in the US, and the people in Canada who supported and who took way our gun control, own these tragedies

Paladin1

Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to kill 168 people.   Seeds from a Caster oil plant, which you can buy off the internet, can be broken down and made into ricin. The equilivant of a few grains of salt worth can kill an adult human. I'd never underestimate humans ability to harm one another.

One of the issues on gun control is that anytime something happens MORE GUN CONTROL is an automatic reaction. It's a quick and easy rally call politicans can get behind to garner support. Short of banning all firearms and enforcing that ban with heavily armed police going door to door with warentless searches it's really just a pipe dream for North America.

Paladin1

edit: posted in wrong thread

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Eveyone needs to give up their weapons as we are not responsible enough to have them.

Let's start with the ones that aren't a problem.  Once criminals see law-abiding gun owners handing in their guns, they'll feel very embarrassed and they'll hand theirs in too.

NorthReport

San Bernardino shooting suspect endured turbulent home life, according to court documents

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-shooter-endured-...

NorthReport

F.B.I. Treats San Bernardino Attack as Possible Terrorism Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0

NorthReport

So let's forget all about gun control, eh! Frown

Terror? Murder? As the Dead Mount, a Debate Persists

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/terrorism-debate-san-bernardino-sho...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

San Bernardino shooting: New York Daily News front page says it's time to stop praying - and start gun control

The headline reads: 'God isn't fixing this'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting...

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

So let's forget all about gun control, eh! Frown

 

You mean banning all civilian owned firearms right? If not, what types of gun-control do you think would be a workable solution?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What do you mean by "workable"?

Do you mean "we (they) could do if if we wanted, so let's do it"?

Or do you mean "effective" -- would keep guns out of the hands of people who will harm others, and not just out of the hands of people who won't?

Honestly, if I believed that a new law banning guns outright would end gun crime, I'd support that.  But we already have laws against killing people and evidently some people just feel free to ignore those.  I'll need a pretty convincing reason to believe that those people are going to suddenly start complying with the law.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What do you mean by "workable"?

Do you mean "we (they) could do if if we wanted, so let's do it"?

Or do you mean "effective" -- would keep guns out of the hands of people who will harm others, and not just out of the hands of people who won't?

Presuming someone isn't simply pushing for a complete ban on all firearms I'm curious what proponents for gun control think would be good rules or laws that would stop or prevent gun violence.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Personally, I'd even put that total ban on the table for discussion, so long as it comes with a compelling argument for how that's going to stop people who don't obey things like "bans".

Right now the argument looks like this:

Problem -- too many drivers are speeding on this stretch of highway, putting their own and others' lives in danger.

Solution -- stop the drivers who are driving the speed limit and impound their vehicles.  Fewer vehicles = less speeding!

Pages