Carrie Underwood Fans
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
12+ dead, more injured in CA shooting
- Thread starter carebear4eva
- Start date
conorlovescarrie:)
New member
Well it was an ak47 style rifle, which aren't even legal in California. So remind me how well gun control works? It only works for people who follow the laws. These criminals don't care that a gun is illegal. If they're going on a shooting rampage they honestly won't care about the legality of the weapon in question as evidenced by the fact an illegal gun type was used. And what happened in France showed us this can happen anywhere no matter how strong the gun control is
HuiZ
Well-known member
^ I never understood the logic of not changing/improving gun control using that reasoning of "criminals will find a way anyway". Or the other frequently used reason of "the problem is not the guns, it's the gun owners."
A burglar or thief will always find a way to break into your house or steal your car if they want to. So does that mean no locks, security system etc are necessary? Why not just leave the doors open for them then?
A burglar or thief will always find a way to break into your house or steal your car if they want to. So does that mean no locks, security system etc are necessary? Why not just leave the doors open for them then?
conorlovescarrie:)
New member
Well if I let a gun on my front porch its not gonna hop up and kill people by itself. It's not the gun its the person behind that. Anything can be used as a weapon. Think of all the people who die from stabbings. Should we ban kitchen knives? Think of all the automobile accidents. Should we ban cars? Even something as simple as a pressure cooker can cause such huge problems. It all depends on the crazies using it. What we have in this nation is a mental health problem we need to address more thoroughly. And it's not something we ever do. We've tried gun control in places like Chicago and it clearly isn't working.
Well guns are meant to be a way of protection against a situation like that, so I don't know - should we remove what's supposed to be a form of protection? I don't think so.
Well guns are meant to be a way of protection against a situation like that, so I don't know - should we remove what's supposed to be a form of protection? I don't think so.
HuiZ
Well-known member
It's so much easier to execute quick mass killing with a gun, compared to knives. Why else would it be the weapon of choice by all the crazies?
It has come to a point where all these mass shootings are becoming copycats of each other.
Yes, what happened in France was terrible, but that was a huge planned terrorism act, it's not the same as having a crazy guy pick up a gun one day and head to a school to shoot 20 kids.
It has come to a point where all these mass shootings are becoming copycats of each other.
Yes, what happened in France was terrible, but that was a huge planned terrorism act, it's not the same as having a crazy guy pick up a gun one day and head to a school to shoot 20 kids.
conorlovescarrie:)
New member
Over a million people die in car crashes ever year. They're so dangerous. Why don't we just ban cars then?
I'm just saying banning guns is not going to do anything to stop these people. Guns can be used by normal citizens for protection and or recreation, so why should we take that away when killers are still gonna find a way to get guns and kill. Marijuana is illegal in most places, but that somehow doesn't stop most people from getting it. A criminal isn't going to respect any gun control law. It will just deny good, honest Americans such as myself something for protection and recreation, and leave us vulnerable.
I'm just saying banning guns is not going to do anything to stop these people. Guns can be used by normal citizens for protection and or recreation, so why should we take that away when killers are still gonna find a way to get guns and kill. Marijuana is illegal in most places, but that somehow doesn't stop most people from getting it. A criminal isn't going to respect any gun control law. It will just deny good, honest Americans such as myself something for protection and recreation, and leave us vulnerable.
Hil
Well-known member
I'm for gun control, but citizens should still be allowed to have them. I think the people doing these mass shootings would be able to get guns anyway. Drugs are illegal and it's not exactly difficult to get them. I'm open to listen to both sides. I just think there's a larger problem here. Normal people don't go around killing people.
liz278
Well-known member
Leaving behind baby and bombs, couple sows panic in California
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif./NEW YORK (Reuters) - On Wednesday morning, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, dropped off their six-month-old baby with Farook's mother, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment.
By noon, the couple had donned assault clothing, armed themselves with rifles and stormed a holiday party attended by San Bernardino County employees, killing 14 people and wounding 17 others.
Before sunset, after a shootout with police, they were both dead, leaving a grieving community with few clues to puzzle out the motive for the carnage.
Syed Farook, born in the United States, worked as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County, inspecting restaurants for health violations, according to authorities and a website that tracks public employees.
As part of his job, he also inspected public pools at locations including apartment and senior housing complexes and country clubs. Records show him performing these duties as recently as July.
While he appeared not to have profiles on popular social media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, Farook was registered on at least two online dating sites - one for "Indian matrimonial and dating services," and another described as a "legal marriage service provider in United Arab Emirates."
It was unclear when he had created those profiles.
Co-workers told the Los Angeles Times that Farook, a U.S. citizen, had traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife, whom he had met online.
On the iMilap.com site, Farook described himself as a 22-year-old Muslim male living in Riverside, California, who was from a "religious but modern family of 4 - 2 girls, 2 boys" and worked for the county as a health, safety and environmental inspector.
He said he enjoyed working on vintage and modern cars, reading religious books and eating out on occasion.
"QUIET, NORMAL GUY"
On Wednesday, Farook attended an annual holiday gathering for employees of his department, then left, only to return later with Malik and weapons.
San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said the shooting spree was clearly planned in advance and that the suspects had left several explosive devices, which appeared to be pipe bombs, at the scene of the massacre.
SueAnn Chapman, a cashier and waitress at China Doll Fast Food, a restaurant that Syed Farook had inspected earlier this year, said he didn't seem unusual.
"He was real quiet," Chapman said. "He checked the food and said he was here because somebody complained. ... He looked completely normal."
Burguan said he did not know whether Farook and Malik were married, but officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who had been in touch with the family said they were husband and wife.
The couple were married for two years and have a six-month-old baby girl, the executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of CAIR, Hussam Ayloush, told Reuters.
The pair left the infant early Wednesday with Farook's mother in the nearby city of Redlands, Ayloush said, relaying information he had received from a brother-in-law of Farook. The couple told her they were headed to a doctor's appointment for Malik.
Burguan said that police investigating the shooting went to a house in Redlands on Wednesday afternoon, and saw the couple take off in a black SUV. Police pursued the car to San Bernardino, where the gun battle ensued that left Farook and Malik dead.
Farook's family was originally from South Asia, while Malik was believed to be from Pakistan and had lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States, Ayloush said. An older brother of Farook had served in the U.S. military, he said.
Public records suggest possible turbulence in Farook's younger life.
In 2006, Rafia Farook, whom records indicate is Farook's mother, filed in a Riverside court for divorce from her husband, also named Syed Farook.
She listed multiple instances of domestic abuse in the legal filing, and said her husband "threatens to kill himself on a daily basis." During one incident, she said in a court filing, her son came between them "to save me."
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif./NEW YORK (Reuters) - On Wednesday morning, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, dropped off their six-month-old baby with Farook's mother, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment.
By noon, the couple had donned assault clothing, armed themselves with rifles and stormed a holiday party attended by San Bernardino County employees, killing 14 people and wounding 17 others.
Before sunset, after a shootout with police, they were both dead, leaving a grieving community with few clues to puzzle out the motive for the carnage.
Syed Farook, born in the United States, worked as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County, inspecting restaurants for health violations, according to authorities and a website that tracks public employees.
As part of his job, he also inspected public pools at locations including apartment and senior housing complexes and country clubs. Records show him performing these duties as recently as July.
While he appeared not to have profiles on popular social media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, Farook was registered on at least two online dating sites - one for "Indian matrimonial and dating services," and another described as a "legal marriage service provider in United Arab Emirates."
It was unclear when he had created those profiles.
Co-workers told the Los Angeles Times that Farook, a U.S. citizen, had traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife, whom he had met online.
On the iMilap.com site, Farook described himself as a 22-year-old Muslim male living in Riverside, California, who was from a "religious but modern family of 4 - 2 girls, 2 boys" and worked for the county as a health, safety and environmental inspector.
He said he enjoyed working on vintage and modern cars, reading religious books and eating out on occasion.
"QUIET, NORMAL GUY"
On Wednesday, Farook attended an annual holiday gathering for employees of his department, then left, only to return later with Malik and weapons.
San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said the shooting spree was clearly planned in advance and that the suspects had left several explosive devices, which appeared to be pipe bombs, at the scene of the massacre.
SueAnn Chapman, a cashier and waitress at China Doll Fast Food, a restaurant that Syed Farook had inspected earlier this year, said he didn't seem unusual.
"He was real quiet," Chapman said. "He checked the food and said he was here because somebody complained. ... He looked completely normal."
Burguan said he did not know whether Farook and Malik were married, but officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who had been in touch with the family said they were husband and wife.
The couple were married for two years and have a six-month-old baby girl, the executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of CAIR, Hussam Ayloush, told Reuters.
The pair left the infant early Wednesday with Farook's mother in the nearby city of Redlands, Ayloush said, relaying information he had received from a brother-in-law of Farook. The couple told her they were headed to a doctor's appointment for Malik.
Burguan said that police investigating the shooting went to a house in Redlands on Wednesday afternoon, and saw the couple take off in a black SUV. Police pursued the car to San Bernardino, where the gun battle ensued that left Farook and Malik dead.
Farook's family was originally from South Asia, while Malik was believed to be from Pakistan and had lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States, Ayloush said. An older brother of Farook had served in the U.S. military, he said.
Public records suggest possible turbulence in Farook's younger life.
In 2006, Rafia Farook, whom records indicate is Farook's mother, filed in a Riverside court for divorce from her husband, also named Syed Farook.
She listed multiple instances of domestic abuse in the legal filing, and said her husband "threatens to kill himself on a daily basis." During one incident, she said in a court filing, her son came between them "to save me."
carebear4eva
Active member
We do have car control. You need to go through a long licensing process to get a car.
HuiZ
Well-known member
Sorry, the car logic is nonsense to me. People die in car ACCIDENTS.
The logic to use to ban cars would be if you get countless incidents of a nutbag driving a car into a school to ram down 50 people on purpose.
Having an EASILY OBTAINABLE or REACHABLE gun for a mentally unstable person or someone who is at irrational rage or someone with vengeful thoughts is like dangling candy in front of a kid. They are not 'criminals'. It really could happen to anyone.
Perhaps I don't know the real condition of living in the US. But I have lived all my life in countries (one of which isn't exactly the safest) where no normal citizen owns a gun. And we all survived. I guess I just don't get the need to feel 'safe' by owning a gun.
Honestly, my view from outside US is that the whole pro-gun argument is basically fueled and backed by people with huge financial interest in them.
Pi314CA
Active member
There are some low hanging fruit that struggles to get passed in Congress. How about banning assault rifles? magazine clips? semi-automatics? Not allowing mentally challenged people from buying guns? Limiting the number of firearms one can own, like 5?
Even after Sandy Hook tragedy, no significant gun laws were passed. Sad.
Even after Sandy Hook tragedy, no significant gun laws were passed. Sad.
HuiZ
Well-known member
^ A quick search on google shows me a 2014 report from Chicago Police and the mayor's office that majority of the gun crimes in Chicago (60%) used guns bought from other states like Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississippi; places that do not require background checks for gun sales at shows and over internet.
pklongbeach
Active member
....at this point, the blood of those innocent people is on the hands of anyone who says "we should not control guns in our country".......#I'mdonebeingniceaboutthis
Kizmet311
Active member
I can see both sides of the issue. I don't think gun control will stop things like what happened in San Bernadino, as I think that was a straight up terrorist attack (not workplace rage/violence) and I think terrorists play like nice/normal citizens until they carry out their heavily pre-meditated plans. I do think that there are certain types of weapons that probably do not need to be owned by private citizens, although me having my CCDW and carrying a handgun isn't going to stop a terrorist with an AK47. Then again, most citizens who have that type of weapon aren't going to be carrying it to work or in public every day to protect us from the bad guys. I do not have any problems with waiting periods of a couple weeks or so for background checks and no one should be able to buy a gun at a gun show and walk right out the door with it, without a background check. My husband bought a handgun at a gun store here in KY and he had to wait probably less than 30 minutes for his background check to be able to buy it that day. I think background checks should include criminal background checks and I think that some type of medical/mental health information needs to be included. I don't know how we get around HIPPA - perhaps there can be a red flag on a person's medical record saying that they shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms without stating the exact condition or treatment the person is receiving, but we have to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns. People with certain mental disorders just shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms, because if they go off of medication or stop seeking treatment, they could be a danger to themselves or others. I'm not talking mild depression/anxiety here, but if your mental illness affects your ability to function normally in social situations or at work then you shouldn't be allowed access to guns. Then there is the problem of how far to take that - should we also ban the sale of firearms to caretakers of those with mental illness? I personally think we should, because if the caretaker isn't 100% certain that access to the firearm is restricted and there is any chance the persona they are caring for could get the gun, they shouldn't be allowed to buy it. That may seem extreme, but the number one priority needs to be the safety of all citizens, even if it infringes on the rights of a few. However, if you don't have a history of mental illness, anger issues (perhaps illustrated by restraining orders or domestic disputes), or criminal history, then I don't think the government should infringe on your rights to bear arms and protect yourself. I also don't think you should be allowed to buy a firearm unless you are a 100% verified citizen of the United States. If you are over here on a work or school visa, then sorry about your luck. Finally, as far as I am concerned, the NSA can collect all the data it wants to on me, because I have nothing to hide. If someone is being watched for terroristic or other suspicious activity, there should somehow be a flag on them so they can't buy a gun either even if they haven't actually committed a crime yet.
With all of that said, I still don't know how gun control could have stopped what happened in San Bernadino. If they are citizens and show zero signs of mental instability or criminal activity, then it just comes down to them being radical Muslims (not saying all Muslims are radical, just that this couple appeared to be) who are straight up terrorists. And I don't know how we stop terrorists.
With all of that said, I still don't know how gun control could have stopped what happened in San Bernadino. If they are citizens and show zero signs of mental instability or criminal activity, then it just comes down to them being radical Muslims (not saying all Muslims are radical, just that this couple appeared to be) who are straight up terrorists. And I don't know how we stop terrorists.
pklongbeach
Active member
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I am in full agreement. I am not trying to take guns away.... I am the same american as many of you who grew up with the idea of a gun on the mantle with a purpose if it ever came to that. And unfortunately, just like with a knife or any other dangerous object, that can be a danger in the wrong circumstance. But in a private home, the home owner assumes all responsibility.
But we have got to enact "not just talk about" some seriously strict enforcement of gun ownership. and the types of weapons an individual should be allowed to own.
For me it always comes down to grenades. We don't get to own them cause they are a danger to society PERIOD! And that is the same with almost everything those terrorists had sitting right in their own home... ITs inexcusable.