At least 14 people are reported dead in shooting at disabled centre in Southern California

[Morch]

What a lovely couple.

Living the American Islamist Jihadist terrorist dream!

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't heard terrorist sympathizer protesting "police brutality" for them being killed by police.

Just married, and a daughter of 6 months old. He worked for 5 years as health inspector and earned a yearly salary of 70.000 USD.

He drove a late Ford Expedition worth 50.000 USD. He lived in a middle class house.

He went as a Muslim to a Christmas party and left earlier.

After that, some 20 or 40 minutes later, we have to believe that he and his wife became radical Jihadi's in 'full tactical camo battle dress' armed with semiautomatic machine guns making 14 fatalities and 18 injured in a mum of time. Nobody saw them coming, nobody saw them leaving.

He and his wife were neutralised after +4 hours of search at 700 m from the first crime scene. The whole area was secured by road blockades. He had to pass one of these road blockades to arrive at the second crime scene.

Pipe bombs have been found all over his place according to latest reports. All this from a guy who was living 'the American dream'...

Let's wait for the outcome of the investigation and the witnesses who come forward...

There's no need for conspiracy theories.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/875612-at-least-14-people-are-reported-dead-in-shooting-at-disabled-centre-in-southern-california/?p=10152869

[chuckd]

Here ya go...

everyone turn in their guns....then the world will be set right.

Now who believes that one? I am thinking all the do-gooders what be collecting weapons, and the bad guys would be rubbing their hands together, making big plans...and hiding theirs.

Sounds like nonsense - why, simply because in all these mass shootings how many upright gun owning people have used the weapons they own - which they claim are for their protection as protection - - yes, correct - NONE. So why are the bad guys rubbing their hands together, they don't have any competition.

This just shows and highlights the nonsense about owning guns for your protection

Virtually all of the mass shootings in the past number of years have been in GUN FREE zones.

Legal gun owners are generally law abiding citizens. They don't carry their weapons into GUN FREE zones, where everybody is as defenseless as new born babes.

You just showed us all how little you know about the situation.

You can justify what ever you want if you try hard enough.

And you can ignore facts as long as those blinders are securely in place.

[Usernames]

The MSM keeps telling us how Farook was "radicalized." Okay, I think I got it now. You see, he was a victim, just like those he slaughtered. Someone pointed their raygun towards Farook and radicalized him.

[seedy]

One off topic Rant removed

[Jingthing]

The MSM keeps telling us how Farook was "radicalized." Okay, I think I got it now. You see, he was a victim, just like those he slaughtered. Someone pointed their raygun towards Farook and radicalized him.

Radicalization does happen. As far as his "normal" presentation, we don't know how much of that was an cover act and for how long, do we?

[55Jay]

What a lovely couple.

Living the American Islamist Jihadist terrorist dream!

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't heard terrorist sympathizer protesting "police brutality" for them being killed by police.

According to Linky, it was America's fault for allowing him access to guns.

Edit: Sorry, "them".... access to guns.

Edited December 4, 2015 by 55Jay

[Mosha]

Fact check. The U.S. is not the worst country in the world when it comes to mass/multiple killings/murder. Several European nations are worse. see this link.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/03/facts-shoot-holes-in-obamas-claim-that-us-is-only-host-to-mass-killings.html?intcmp=hpbt3

​

USA 5% of the worlds population and 30% of the mass killings. Including relatively small populations in figures does not tell the whole story. eg the country with the worst road deaths has a population of below 2,000. . About 1 death/year.

[ilostmypassword]

Senate Republicans vote down legislation that would block suspected terrorists, felons, mentally ill from buying guns

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448

I decided to look for this story on Foxnews.com. There as no headline about it at all. The information I did find was under the following headline:

Senate approves Republican-backed bill unraveling ObamaCare

And here is the specific text in the article:

"They [senators] blocked proposals for tightening gun curbs, a response to Wednesday's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, last week's fatal attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and last month's terrorist massacre in Paris."

No mention at all of barring suspected terrorists. Way to go, Fox. Fair & Balanced.

[CharlieH]

Off topic post removed.

[Artisi]

Sounds like nonsense - why, simply because in all these mass shootings how many upright gun owning people have used the weapons they own - which they claim are for their protection as protection - - yes, correct - NONE. So why are the bad guys rubbing their hands together, they don't have any competition.

This just shows and highlights the nonsense about owning guns for your protection

Virtually all of the mass shootings in the past number of years have been in GUN FREE zones.

Legal gun owners are generally law abiding citizens. They don't carry their weapons into GUN FREE zones, where everybody is as defenseless as new born babes.

You just showed us all how little you know about the situation.

You can justify what ever you want if you try hard enough.

And you can ignore facts as long as those blinders are securely in place.

Seems you have the blinders on, as for ignoring facts maybe you should just do a bit of research instead of regurgitating nonsense - which just shows that you really know very little about anything.

Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings - everytownresearch.org

“Gun-free” Zones

Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”

​

No need to apologise - just do a bit of learning and improve your knowledge.

[Jingthing]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

[Linky]

What a lovely couple.

Living the American Islamist Jihadist terrorist dream!

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't heard terrorist sympathizer protesting "police brutality" for them being killed by police.

According to Linky, it was America's fault for allowing him access to guns.

Edit: Sorry, "them".... access to guns.

And wasnt it?

[Usernames]

Yep. They were ISIS, as just everyone with an ounce of brains expected. Only the MSM, the president of the US, and nitwits trying to deflect the issue on to gun control couldn't figure it out. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

As the San Bernardino attack was happening, investigators believe the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Usernames

[Jingthing]

They were definitely Islamic Jihadist and the pattern fits Isis. So of course no surprise. I wasn't sure whether it was definitely ISIS or another flavor of the same disease.

[beechguy]

What a lovely couple.

Living the American Islamist Jihadist terrorist dream!

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't heard terrorist sympathizer protesting "police brutality" for them being killed by police.

According to Linky, it was America's fault for allowing him access to guns.

Edit: Sorry, "them".... access to guns.

And wasnt it?

No, not America's fault, contrary to the nanny states in Europe, the U.S. still believes in personal responsibility. These owners failed. The firearms were legally purchased, that means the purchasers had no criminal record. As to the common items bought at a hardware store, to manufacture the bombs, soldering irons, multi-meters, pipe, etc. you think they should be restricted also?

The fact is, these individual chose to become terrorists, unfortunately they weren't killed before murdering innocent people.

Edited December 4, 2015 by beechguy

[lannarebirth]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

[Jingthing]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

I generally agree. But most of the gun deaths in the U.S. including mass shootings are not related to terrorism. This one obviously was.

[lannarebirth]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

I generally agree. But most of the gun deaths in the U.S. including mass shootings are not related to terrorism. This one obviously was.

While I support gun control measures which would be much more strict than anyone on either side of the debate is talking about, I support the 2nd Amendment as well. I don't view one as being in particular conflict with the other. That said, I think anyone can kill large numbers of people at any time if they are twisted enough and don't care if they live or die carrying out the act.

I myself at one time was responsible for the safety of dozens of lives. If I was fukced in the head I could have killed them at any time. There are millions of people with jobs like that from the bus driver to the lunch lady. They could kill any number of people if that was their desire.

Edited December 4, 2015 by lannarebirth

[chuckd]

Virtually all of the mass shootings in the past number of years have been in GUN FREE zones.

Legal gun owners are generally law abiding citizens. They don't carry their weapons into GUN FREE zones, where everybody is as defenseless as new born babes.

You just showed us all how little you know about the situation.

You can justify what ever you want if you try hard enough.

And you can ignore facts as long as those blinders are securely in place.

Seems you have the blinders on, as for ignoring facts maybe you should just do a bit of research instead of regurgitating nonsense - which just shows that you really know very little about anything.

Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings - everytownresearch.org

“Gun-free” Zones

Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”

​

No need to apologise - just do a bit of learning and improve your knowledge.

In the first place, mass shootings in private homes are hardly considered public events as they are generally family events or one off criminal activities.

I did look at your link and the first thing I did was go to their Analysis of recent Mass Shootings. The first one on the list was this:

1. Chattanooga, TN, 7/16/15

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The shooter fired from a vehicle into an Army/Navy recruitment center. Then, he traveled six miles to the U.S. Naval Reserve where he killed four marines and one sailor and injured two others including a police officer, before he was killed by responding police.

• SHOOTER NAME: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24

• GUN DETAILS: AK-47, Saiga 15 shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson handgun

• GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown

• PROHIBITING CRITERIA: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from possessing firearms.

• NOT A GUN-FREE ZONE: The shooter fired at the Army/Navy recruitment center from the parking lot. Under Tennessee law, permit holders are allowed to keep guns in their cars in public and private parking lots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To look at the shootings in Chattanooga, one must remember that none of the deaths occurred at the recruitment center. All deaths occurred at the US Naval Reserve facility. As has been posted on here, both the actual recruitment office and the Naval Reserve facility were gun free zones, as are all military bases. Once the shooter breached the security fence in his car, he was in a federally mandated gun free zone. What weapons the particular officers and enlisted men might have had in their cars have nothing to do with it, since the offices and work areas inside the facilities are gun free zones. The citing of Tennessee law is irrelevant since the shootings were on federal property.

2. Realizing the report you have linked to is following an agenda, I then took to the internet and found the following report which is an analysis of your report.

That report can be found here: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

Their summary of the Everytown Report says this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

'There are numerical errors and incorrect classifications of events that work towards supporting Everytown’s conclusions. These types of errors have been revealed numerous times in the past in different studies done by Everytown and other Bloomberg funded studies. For instance, after the CPRC pointed out in Fox News that Everytown grossly inflated the number of school shootings, 4 others such as CNN, Politifact.com, and the Daily Caller noted the same problem. 5 While Everytown claimed 74 school shootings occurred between the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in December 2012 and June 2014, Politifact put the number of “incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder” at 10. Many cases were simply unconnected to the school and/or took place outside of school hours. Others involved gangs, drug dealing, or robberies. Politifact rated Everytown’s claim as “mostly false".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Everytown is a Bloomberg organization that has a goal of total gun control and is certainly not an unbiased report. They arrive at the results the Mayor wants them to.

Your link is as irrelevant as is Tennessee law in their opening example.

Edited December 4, 2015 by chuckd

[chuckd]

Senate Republicans vote down legislation that would block suspected terrorists, felons, mentally ill from buying guns

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448

I decided to look for this story on Foxnews.com. There as no headline about it at all. The information I did find was under the following headline:

Senate approves Republican-backed bill unraveling ObamaCare

And here is the specific text in the article:

"They [senators] blocked proposals for tightening gun curbs, a response to Wednesday's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, last week's fatal attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and last month's terrorist massacre in Paris."

No mention at all of barring suspected terrorists. Way to go, Fox. Fair & Balanced.

Just for the record, the Democrats blocked the same amendment in 2013 following the Newtown school shooting.

The Democrats controlled the Senate in 2013.

You see, it's all about cloture in the Senate. The 60 votes to halt discussion are sometimes hard to get.

From the link below:

"The background check measure, co-authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., was the same proposal the Senate rejected in early 2013, just months after 20 children and six educators were shot to death at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/12/04/senate-rejects-more-gun-background-checks-after-ca-attack/?subscriber=1

Edited December 4, 2015 by chuckd

[stevenl]

Virtually all of the mass shootings in the past number of years have been in GUN FREE zones.

Legal gun owners are generally law abiding citizens. They don't carry their weapons into GUN FREE zones, where everybody is as defenseless as new born babes.

You just showed us all how little you know about the situation.

You can justify what ever you want if you try hard enough.

And you can ignore facts as long as those blinders are securely in place.

Seems you have the blinders on, as for ignoring facts maybe you should just do a bit of research instead of regurgitating nonsense - which just shows that you really know very little about anything.

Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings - everytownresearch.org
“Gun-free” Zones
Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”
​
No need to apologise - just do a bit of learning and improve your knowledge.

In the first place, mass shootings in private homes are hardly considered public events as they are generally family events or one off criminal activities.

I did look at your link and the first thing I did was go to their Analysis of recent Mass Shootings. The first one on the list was this:

1. Chattanooga, TN, 7/16/15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The shooter fired from a vehicle into an Army/Navy recruitment center. Then, he traveled six miles to the U.S. Naval Reserve where he killed four marines and one sailor and injured two others including a police officer, before he was killed by responding police.

• SHOOTER NAME: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24
• GUN DETAILS: AK-47, Saiga 15 shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson handgun
• GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown
• PROHIBITING CRITERIA: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from possessing firearms.
• NOT A GUN-FREE ZONE: The shooter fired at the Army/Navy recruitment center from the parking lot. Under Tennessee law, permit holders are allowed to keep guns in their cars in public and private parking lots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To look at the shootings in Chattanooga, one must remember that none of the deaths occurred at the recruitment center. All deaths occurred at the US Naval Reserve facility. As has been posted on here, both the actual recruitment office and the Naval Reserve facility were gun free zones, as are all military bases. Once the shooter breached the security fence in his car, he was in a federally mandated gun free zone. What weapons the particular officers and enlisted men might have had in their cars have nothing to do with it, since the offices and work areas inside the facilities are gun free zones. The citing of Tennessee law is irrelevant since the shootings were on federal property.

2. Realizing the report you have linked to is following an agenda, I then took to the internet and found the following report which is an analysis of your report.

That report can be found here: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

Their summary of the Everytown Report says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'There are numerical errors and incorrect classifications of events that work towards supporting Everytown’s conclusions. These types of errors have been revealed numerous times in the past in different studies done by Everytown and other Bloomberg funded studies. For instance, after the CPRC pointed out in Fox News that Everytown grossly inflated the number of school shootings, 4 others such as CNN, Politifact.com, and the Daily Caller noted the same problem. 5 While Everytown claimed 74 school shootings occurred between the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in December 2012 and June 2014, Politifact put the number of “incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder” at 10. Many cases were simply unconnected to the school and/or took place outside of school hours. Others involved gangs, drug dealing, or robberies. Politifact rated Everytown’s claim as “mostly false".
-------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Everytown is a Bloomberg organization that has a goal of total gun control and is certainly not an unbiased report. They arrive at the results the Mayor wants them to.

Your link is as irrelevant as is Tennessee law in their opening example.

Your argumentation is proven to be incorrect, and all you can say is ' I don't like Bloomberg'.

[pitrevie]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

I generally agree. But most of the gun deaths in the U.S. including mass shootings are not related to terrorism. This one obviously was.

While I support gun control measures which would be much more strict than anyone on either side of the debate is talking about, I support the 2nd Amendment as well. I don't view one as being in particular conflict with the other. That said, I think anyone can kill large numbers of people at any time if they are twisted enough and don't care if they live or die carrying out the act.

I myself at one time was responsible for the safety of dozens of lives. If I was fukced in the head I could have killed them at any time. There are millions of people with jobs like that from the bus driver to the lunch lady. They could kill any number of people if that was their desire.

I don't think I have heard any politician suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment only that the issue of gun control should be looked at and maybe some sensible improvements put in place. However I guess the Congress is too busy with important issues such as repealing Obama Care, Planned Parent Hood and holding Benghazi hearings to spare any time for that.

[Artisi]

Gun laws need to be national. Duh. There are no border controls between cities and states. Anyway these bozos were determined regardless of gun laws.

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

I generally agree. But most of the gun deaths in the U.S. including mass shootings are not related to terrorism. This one obviously was.

While I support gun control measures which would be much more strict than anyone on either side of the debate is talking about, I support the 2nd Amendment as well. I don't view one as being in particular conflict with the other. That said, I think anyone can kill large numbers of people at any time if they are twisted enough and don't care if they live or die carrying out the act.

I myself at one time was responsible for the safety of dozens of lives. If I was fukced in the head I could have killed them at any time. There are millions of people with jobs like that from the bus driver to the lunch lady. They could kill any number of people if that was their desire.

I don't think I have heard any politician suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment only that the issue of gun control should be looked at and maybe some sensible improvements put in place. However I guess the Congress is too busy with important issues such as repealing Obama Care, Planned Parent Hood and holding Benghazi hearings to spare any time for that.

As an outsider to the land of the free etc, it would appear it is just one big screwed up mess.

[DisparateDan]

While members vie with each other over their differing beliefs and interpretations, which is the purpose of forums

it may be worth noting and reduce boiling too much water :-.

Neuroscience research indicates that our brains hold so tenaciously to our beliefs that anything offered contrary

reinforces those beliefs.

The exceptions will be science that is disproved .

Google is your friend.

Edited December 5, 2015 by DisparateDan

[Berkshire]

Senate Republicans vote down legislation that would block suspected terrorists, felons, mentally ill from buying guns

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448

I decided to look for this story on Foxnews.com. There as no headline about it at all. The information I did find was under the following headline:

Senate approves Republican-backed bill unraveling ObamaCare

And here is the specific text in the article:

"They [senators] blocked proposals for tightening gun curbs, a response to Wednesday's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, last week's fatal attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and last month's terrorist massacre in Paris."

No mention at all of barring suspected terrorists. Way to go, Fox. Fair & Balanced.

Yeap, pretty typical. Fox News is only fair and balanced if one is a right-wing nutbag.

[lannarebirth]

There are no preventative nor punitive measures that are effective at stopping people who accept that they will die carrying out their murderous crimes.

I generally agree. But most of the gun deaths in the U.S. including mass shootings are not related to terrorism. This one obviously was.

While I support gun control measures which would be much more strict than anyone on either side of the debate is talking about, I support the 2nd Amendment as well. I don't view one as being in particular conflict with the other. That said, I think anyone can kill large numbers of people at any time if they are twisted enough and don't care if they live or die carrying out the act.

I myself at one time was responsible for the safety of dozens of lives. If I was fukced in the head I could have killed them at any time. There are millions of people with jobs like that from the bus driver to the lunch lady. They could kill any number of people if that was their desire.

I don't think I have heard any politician suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment only that the issue of gun control should be looked at and maybe some sensible improvements put in place. However I guess the Congress is too busy with important issues such as repealing Obama Care, Planned Parent Hood and holding Benghazi hearings to spare any time for that.

Moderate gun control advocates aren't asking for much, and if they got what they wanted they won't have accomplished very much either. Lots of mass murderers will have passed background checks and enhanced background checks and mental health checks. I'd like to see all handguns banned as well as all semi-automatic rifles and penalties significantly stiffened for possession and use of those banned weapons. That of course will not prevent all mass killings, but it will prevent a significant number of mass killings by guns.

I'd also like to see exceptions to the ban for those who can show a need for the banned weapons. An allowed exception would entail a psychological evaluation and gun safety courses.

Edited December 5, 2015 by lannarebirth

[ilostmypassword]

Senate Republicans vote down legislation that would block suspected terrorists, felons, mentally ill from buying guns

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448

I decided to look for this story on Foxnews.com. There as no headline about it at all. The information I did find was under the following headline:

Senate approves Republican-backed bill unraveling ObamaCare

And here is the specific text in the article:

"They [senators] blocked proposals for tightening gun curbs, a response to Wednesday's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, last week's fatal attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and last month's terrorist massacre in Paris."

No mention at all of barring suspected terrorists. Way to go, Fox. Fair & Balanced.

Just for the record, the Democrats blocked the same amendment in 2013 following the Newtown school shooting.

The Democrats controlled the Senate in 2013.

You see, it's all about cloture in the Senate. The 60 votes to halt discussion are sometimes hard to get.

From the link below:

"The background check measure, co-authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., was the same proposal the Senate rejected in early 2013, just months after 20 children and six educators were shot to death at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/12/04/senate-rejects-more-gun-background-checks-after-ca-attack/?subscriber=1

Almost all of the democrats voted for it. Virtually none of the Republicans did. How does that make Democrats responsible for blocking it? They just didn't have enough of a majority to get it passed thanks to Senate rules. Such obvious sophistry on your part.

[chuckd]

Seems you have the blinders on, as for ignoring facts maybe you should just do a bit of research instead of regurgitating nonsense - which just shows that you really know very little about anything.

Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings - everytownresearch.org

“Gun-free” Zones

Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”

​

No need to apologise - just do a bit of learning and improve your knowledge.

In the first place, mass shootings in private homes are hardly considered public events as they are generally family events or one off criminal activities.

I did look at your link and the first thing I did was go to their Analysis of recent Mass Shootings. The first one on the list was this:

1. Chattanooga, TN, 7/16/15

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The shooter fired from a vehicle into an Army/Navy recruitment center. Then, he traveled six miles to the U.S. Naval Reserve where he killed four marines and one sailor and injured two others including a police officer, before he was killed by responding police.

• SHOOTER NAME: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24

• GUN DETAILS: AK-47, Saiga 15 shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson handgun

• GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown

• PROHIBITING CRITERIA: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from possessing firearms.

• NOT A GUN-FREE ZONE: The shooter fired at the Army/Navy recruitment center from the parking lot. Under Tennessee law, permit holders are allowed to keep guns in their cars in public and private parking lots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To look at the shootings in Chattanooga, one must remember that none of the deaths occurred at the recruitment center. All deaths occurred at the US Naval Reserve facility. As has been posted on here, both the actual recruitment office and the Naval Reserve facility were gun free zones, as are all military bases. Once the shooter breached the security fence in his car, he was in a federally mandated gun free zone. What weapons the particular officers and enlisted men might have had in their cars have nothing to do with it, since the offices and work areas inside the facilities are gun free zones. The citing of Tennessee law is irrelevant since the shootings were on federal property.

2. Realizing the report you have linked to is following an agenda, I then took to the internet and found the following report which is an analysis of your report.

That report can be found here: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

Their summary of the Everytown Report says this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

'There are numerical errors and incorrect classifications of events that work towards supporting Everytown’s conclusions. These types of errors have been revealed numerous times in the past in different studies done by Everytown and other Bloomberg funded studies. For instance, after the CPRC pointed out in Fox News that Everytown grossly inflated the number of school shootings, 4 others such as CNN, Politifact.com, and the Daily Caller noted the same problem. 5 While Everytown claimed 74 school shootings occurred between the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in December 2012 and June 2014, Politifact put the number of “incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder” at 10. Many cases were simply unconnected to the school and/or took place outside of school hours. Others involved gangs, drug dealing, or robberies. Politifact rated Everytown’s claim as “mostly false".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Everytown is a Bloomberg organization that has a goal of total gun control and is certainly not an unbiased report. They arrive at the results the Mayor wants them to.

Your link is as irrelevant as is Tennessee law in their opening example.

Your argumentation is proven to be incorrect, and all you can say is ' I don't like Bloomberg'.

Is it your reading skill or you comprehension that continues to fail you?

Edited December 5, 2015 by chuckd

[stevenl]

In the first place, mass shootings in private homes are hardly considered public events as they are generally family events or one off criminal activities.

I did look at your link and the first thing I did was go to their Analysis of recent Mass Shootings. The first one on the list was this:

1. Chattanooga, TN, 7/16/15

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The shooter fired from a vehicle into an Army/Navy recruitment center. Then, he traveled six miles to the U.S. Naval Reserve where he killed four marines and one sailor and injured two others including a police officer, before he was killed by responding police.

• SHOOTER NAME: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24

• GUN DETAILS: AK-47, Saiga 15 shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson handgun

• GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown

• PROHIBITING CRITERIA: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from possessing firearms.

• NOT A GUN-FREE ZONE: The shooter fired at the Army/Navy recruitment center from the parking lot. Under Tennessee law, permit holders are allowed to keep guns in their cars in public and private parking lots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To look at the shootings in Chattanooga, one must remember that none of the deaths occurred at the recruitment center. All deaths occurred at the US Naval Reserve facility. As has been posted on here, both the actual recruitment office and the Naval Reserve facility were gun free zones, as are all military bases. Once the shooter breached the security fence in his car, he was in a federally mandated gun free zone. What weapons the particular officers and enlisted men might have had in their cars have nothing to do with it, since the offices and work areas inside the facilities are gun free zones. The citing of Tennessee law is irrelevant since the shootings were on federal property.

2. Realizing the report you have linked to is following an agenda, I then took to the internet and found the following report which is an analysis of your report.

That report can be found here: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

Their summary of the Everytown Report says this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

'There are numerical errors and incorrect classifications of events that work towards supporting Everytown’s conclusions. These types of errors have been revealed numerous times in the past in different studies done by Everytown and other Bloomberg funded studies. For instance, after the CPRC pointed out in Fox News that Everytown grossly inflated the number of school shootings, 4 others such as CNN, Politifact.com, and the Daily Caller noted the same problem. 5 While Everytown claimed 74 school shootings occurred between the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in December 2012 and June 2014, Politifact put the number of “incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder” at 10. Many cases were simply unconnected to the school and/or took place outside of school hours. Others involved gangs, drug dealing, or robberies. Politifact rated Everytown’s claim as “mostly false".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Everytown is a Bloomberg organization that has a goal of total gun control and is certainly not an unbiased report. They arrive at the results the Mayor wants them to.

Your link is as irrelevant as is Tennessee law in their opening example.

Your argumentation is proven to be incorrect, and all you can say is ' I don't like Bloomberg'.

Is it your reading skill or you comprehension that continues to fail you?

Mist be your explanation skills.

[55Jay]

I don't think I have heard any politician suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment only that the issue of gun control should be looked at and maybe some sensible improvements put in place. However I guess the Congress is too busy with important issues such as repealing Obama Care, Planned Parent Hood and holding Benghazi hearings to spare any time for that.

Your hedge "I don't think" is the most accurate part of your post.

However, I agree with the overall sentiment, even though it's inaccurate.