America's bizarre reaction to mass shootings

[DM07]

I asked this on another thread:

I am baffled, how easy it obviously is, to buy all kinds of guns and ammo!

Of course you have the nutwings, who need to protect themselves from everything from burglars, government takeover, Muslims, the zombie apocalypse or an alien invasion. Blabbering about "guerilla warfare" and other BS.

Then you have the "hunters", who need guns to protect their land from too many deer or just shoot some animals for "sports"!

I would follow this argumentation much easier that the "defend"- hogwash...if someone would tell me, why you need an AK47 to shoot a deer or armor- piercing amo to shoot bears!

But HOW, WHY and WHERE does one purchase kevlar- vests?

Unless you are an US- Marine, a cop or at the very least working for a security- company: why in the name of sweet baby Jeeeezus would you need a kevlar- vest!

If someone strolls into your kevlar- vest shop and can not indentify himself as one of the above...why would he wont to buy a kevlar- vest, unless, he is looking to protect himself from someone shooting and him in a planned confrontation!

You don't sleep with these things, in case a "burglar" breaks into your home!

I have so far not heard about bears, shooting back on a hunt!

So how come, "normal" "citizens", get to stock up, like they are going to Iraq?

Body- armor, armor piercing bullets and assault riffles?

>end of rant<

Your "rant" has been answered earlier.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/875612-at-least-14-people-are-reported-dead-in-shooting-at-disabled-centre-in-southern-california/page-9#entry10152264

Try alibaba for the kevlar vests.

So, what you are saying: also no control, no checks, no balances!

You want it, you got it!

Okay, got it now!

Free enterprise, huh?!

I clicked through on the UK body armour sales website. There were no restrictions. They would even deliver it to me in Thailand (which we've seen recently would be illegal to possess).

Free enterprise indeed. UK is just one of the many scum bag nations selling thier military hardware and weapons around the world.

Still baffled, or just a bit of the Nanny State Selective Memory Syndrome?

Just because it happens somewhere else, means there can be no discussion about the US?

Also remind me: when was the last time, the UK saw 3 mass- shootings in one week?

But that aside:

- would I want better controls in the UK as well? You bet! And in Sweden, Germany and Takatukaland!

- as Jon Stewart once said: to get this epidemic under control, there are no bad ideas!

Doin nothing and offering prayers every other day to the victims- that does not help!

At all!

[55Jay]

I clicked through on the UK body armour sales website. There were no restrictions. They would even deliver it to me in Thailand (which we've seen recently would be illegal to possess).

Free enterprise indeed. UK is just one of the many scum bag nations selling thier military hardware and weapons around the world.

Still baffled, or just a bit of the Nanny State Selective Memory Syndrome?

Just because it happens somewhere else, means there can be no discussion about the US?

Also remind me: when was the last time, the UK saw 3 mass- shootings in one week?

But that aside:

- would I want better controls in the UK as well? You bet! And in Sweden, Germany and Takatukaland!

- as Jon Stewart once said: to get this epidemic under control, there are no bad ideas!

Doin nothing and offering prayers every other day to the victims- that does not help!

At all!

Alas, the venerable free speech card is played. It's the good ammendment right before the bad one about da' guns. LOL.

This is anything but a discussion, no need to patronize with a reminder about UK Gun Control. Heard it all before. Ad naseum. And then you'll make light of why it's always repeated, round and round it goes.

Fact is the usual suspects have no genuine concern or skin in the game, so their endless blathering is seen for what it is.

[wanderingstray]

Ho-Hum another mass shooting in America.

[dutchisaan]

In the USA, you can be put on the NO fly list if the government thinks that you are a terrorist.

However, if you are on this list, you can still buy a gun legally in the USA!

[METV]

May be the solution to world's overpopulation?

[CMNightRider]

"America's bizarre reaction to mass shootings"..............and the ThaiVisa gun haters immature responses to America's mass shootings. You people need to get a life.

18 people within the last 5 days can't get a life anymore, because they are now dead!

Thanks to a country were every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to own an arsenal in the basement!

Including people on the terror watchlist, as we are finding out!

Get some empathy!

You have got to be kidding me. Those people are dead because a couple of loonie Muslims killed them. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens would have done nothing to stop these people. Rub those sleepy little eyes and wake up.

[Artisi]

The guys responsible for the San Bernadino massacre didn't have to go through background checks before buying guns. Americans start throthing at the mouth when you start to talk about 'gun control', that is to say restricting ownership of guns to people that have a good reason for needing one.

give me one good reason..............

[White Christmas13]

The guys responsible for the San Bernadino massacre didn't have to go through background checks before buying guns. Americans start throthing at the mouth when you start to talk about 'gun control', that is to say restricting ownership of guns to people that have a good reason for needing one.

They owned the guns legally. Did they legally get them without background checks?

I guess they owned 12 pipe bombs legally too

[White Christmas13]

Although the frequency of mass shootings varies upon their definition, it has been reported that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S despite the U.S. having only 5% of the world's population,^[24][25] In the years 2013, 2014, 2015 combined 71 people were killed in the United States during mass shootings ^[26] A USA Today report concluded that mass shootings occur every two weeks.^[16]

^{source Wikipedia}

[Thorgal]

According to the US news outlets 2 Pakistani's were involved in a carnage in San Bernardino.

I didn't saw any link in the same media outlets concerning the highest intensity drone air strikes in Pakistan since the Obama administration.

Out of sight and out of mind... : a nice presentation of hidden facts :

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com

Is there any link between Pakistan and San Bernardino with "the bizarre reaction of Americans after the shootings" in the shadow of a silent war ?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[OMGImInPattaya]

In the USA, you can be put on the NO fly list if the government thinks that you are a terrorist.

However, if you are on this list, you can still buy a gun legally in the USA!

As some of us have pointed out, those lists don't mean jack...anyone can end up on them for many reasons and it's virtually impossible to get off. The criterion for inclusion is shrouded in secrecy and to deny someone a constitutional right because of inclusion on them is tantamount to jailing someone without trial.

[willyumiii]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.

He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.

Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Edited December 4, 2015 by willyumiii

[arjunadawn]

This article, indeed the very byline, is just more of the same echo chamber brought to you by the underlying ideology that brings you... the majority of the very problems [they] cry about. Enacted legislation that variously disarms only those who would follow the law sets up a predatory environment whereby people with no design to follow the law have guns and those who wish to live normal, productive lives lack the Natural Right to defend themselves at home and in the public space. When the laws in place are not enforced, violators prosecuted, and intelligent approaches to self defense ridiculed, the progressive left in America screams "See," variously suggesting the same boogeyman that required their laws in the first place still exists, and we require more of their prescriptions- to inflict good upon us, no doubt. Yet if many laws, and perhaps some tweaking of existing laws, was evidenced, we would see a much better improvement. Couple this with actually removing restrictions on private carry of weapons and though you may not directly decrease attacks at the front end, at the rear end you will decrease them because Hard Targets are never desired. Terrorists, bad people, criminals, will always target Soft Targets. Period!

America liberals are not responsible for people who shoot others; no more than those on the right. Indeed, nor are the guns. The common thread in all of these horrors is just as much a gun as it is social deviancy, mental health, and very often, psychotropic drugs. In fact, there has been not one single example where increased gun control has decreased violence in a major city. Its true that others like to look to EU, UK particularly, and elsewhere for examples. But not only is this false analogy, its bad math. Adjusted properly they are poor analogies even if conceded equal. They are not equal though and never can be as the culture of guns in the US is directly tied to an inherent Right of Man, whether governments were formed by consensus of not- the Right to protect Self and Family and Property. (The disconnect is even more stunning when people consider the US actually arms masses of people around the world who are loosely now tied to the emerging fears of threats in the US).

Progressives maybe could make inroads into the middle of undecided American were their mechanics not so virulently aggressive, and one sided. Yes, aggressive. As easily as everyone believes the Planned Parenthood attacks had everything to do with abortion (and the left raced to correctly label it as such) the left asserts the jury is still out regarding California, and it is way too soon to assign a radical islamic connection. Really? If it walks and quacks like a duck, its a duck! It is this disconnect that sets up gun control proponents in the genuine light they are, biased and working an agenda that is not entirely about removing guns, its about removing who has guns. After all, there is zero evidence that gun control in the areas with the most violence in the US- inner cities- is remotely effected, nor indeed even part of the common debate. Like the entire premise of Progressives, governing is secondary, social engineering is paramount.

It makes no sense to offer examples and data, etc., to make my point because that is the nature of this sick issue- everyone has data that makes their point. In the case of progressives, they do not even assign a legitimate point of view to their opponents, instead always choosing demonization and ridicule. This also defined their position is weak. Yet it remains true that there can be two sides looking at the same information and reaching different conclusions. What is also true is gun laws in the US are nearly entirely proscribed by the left already- that is their evolution. Nearly all the rules on the books exist to enforce an end that has never materialized. In each subsequent tragedy the same argument is brought off the shelf, dusted off, and tweaked to argue further restrictions. Indeed, as the former chief of staff for Obama and Mayor of one of the most deadly cities on earth has basically said "let no crisis go to waste." It presents an opportunity to enact laws that would not otherwise be able to be passed. This sums up the entire past 7 years but more importantly, defines the approach Obama uses to problems only indirectly related to his avowed policy aims.

Yet where there are guns in the hands of law abiding people, statistically, crime decreased. If we are entering an age where such attacks will be common it is only further evidence of the right of people to be armed to provide the final means of self preservation. For whatever reason, government has indicated they are unable. America will see more islamic jihad attacks and these attacks must... must be disassembled in order to have 1. Fear 2. An extrapolation of the problem as "guns" and not "islamic" terrorists, and 3. An argument to further disarm the very people who are under attack. If I am incorrect we should know within some months, not years. As I state above in 1-3 will be the exact steps.

[Basil B]

I clicked through on the UK body armour sales website. There were no restrictions. They would even deliver it to me in Thailand (which we've seen recently would be illegal to possess).

Free enterprise indeed. UK is just one of the many scum bag nations selling thier military hardware and weapons around the world.

Still baffled, or just a bit of the Nanny State Selective Memory Syndrome?

Yes, In my line of work some contracts specify the use of...

I avoid them.

[stevenl]

In the USA, you can be put on the NO fly list if the government thinks that you are a terrorist.

However, if you are on this list, you can still buy a gun legally in the USA!

As some of us have pointed out, those lists don't mean jack...anyone can end up on them for many reasons and it's virtually impossible to get off. The criterion for inclusion is shrouded in secrecy and to deny someone a constitutional right because of inclusion on them is tantamount to jailing someone without trial.

So the system is broken. But in stead of fixing it it gets worse and worse.

[slerickson]

Little reported but San Bernadino, the second poorest city in the USA was the second mass shooting of the day. Earlier in the day there were 3 wounded and one killed in Georgia.

[sirineou]

when every one has guns , guess what? everyone has guns

only one question. Have you guys seen everyone? and you want them to have guns?

ARE YOU SERIOUS????

[CMNightRider]

On December 3, The Washington Post reported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones; WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.

Increases in gun ownership correlated with drastic reductions in firearm-related homicides, but creating zones where law-abiding citizens are denied the ability to be armed for self-defense have allowed high-profile attackers to find easy targets.

[Bung]

If someone at the party had been properly trained and armed, there might have been only two deaths...not 14.

[sirineou]

If someone at the party had been properly trained and armed, there might have been only two deaths...not 14.

Yosemite-Sam-Cartoon-Wallpapers.jpg

If my Grandma had a penis the they would call her Grandpa

[MZurf]

If someone at the party had been properly trained and armed, there might have been only two deaths...not 14.

Yosemite-Sam-Cartoon-Wallpapers.jpg

If my Grandma had a penis the they would call her Grandpa

Nope, they would call her a katoey!

[MZurf]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.

He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.

Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Exactly! Can any of you guns for everyone advocates please explain why this should not be the case?

[MZurf]

"America's bizarre reaction to mass shootings"..............and the ThaiVisa gun haters immature responses to America's mass shootings. You people need to get a life.

Wow, you totally convinced me with your clear and succinct arguments! For the record, which immature responses are you talking about and what clued you into them not having a life?

[JDGRUEN]

Almost all the so called mass shootings of multiple people in America in the past several years have been in Gun Free Zones or buildings... No way to defend one's self. People are sitting ducks.

And it does not matter what Gun Grabbers want ... the Second Amendment is not going to change...

The Incident in California a few days ago was a Terrorist action done by radical Muslim Terrorists... the FBI now admits it was a Terrorist Action... Paris is a gun free zone and the country of France is tightly gun controlled but radical Islamic Terrorists shot well over one hundred... because no one who was a target could shoot back...

No one in the building in California could shoot back - as they did not have guns...

No amount of breast beating by Gun haters and Gun grabbers will change the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .... Society has to change ...

Blacks killing blacks constitute a huge percentage of gun killings in America - the largest bloc of gun killings ... Blacks killing whites with guns also makes a big dent in the murder statistics ...

It is not white people killing anyone that makes up the lopsided percentage. And white gun owning Americans are not going to take the rap for all the shootings and give up their Constitutional Rights ...

Rant all you want -- guns are not the problem in America.. .the Ignorant black racists that are killing each other and killing whites that is the main problem --

GO READ THE FBI CRIME STATICS before you spout off ...

And please if possible try to separate a Terrorist action by Islamic Radicals from the other incidents - This couple made bombs too - had a bomb factory in their home - let's ban bombs too... OH ... I forgot they are banned...

The number of so called mass shootings has skyrocketed under President Obama as compare to the time periods of all other Presidents .... Could it be that Obama's spreading of divisiveness and racial hate and fanning the flags of black racism towards whites could explain the problem?

Again - go look at the statistics before ranting ...

[simple1]

Almost all the so called mass shootings of multiple people in America in the past several years have been in Gun Free Zones or buildings... No way to defend one's self. People are sitting ducks.

And it does not matter what Gun Grabbers want ... the Second Amendment is not going to change...

The Incident in California a few days ago was a Terrorist action done by radical Muslim Terrorists... the FBI now admits it was a Terrorist Action... Paris is a gun free zone and the country of France is tightly gun controlled but radical Islamic Terrorists shot well over one hundred... because no one who was a target could shoot back...

No one in the building in California could shoot back - as they did not have guns...

No amount of breast beating by Gun haters and Gun grabbers will change the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .... Society has to change ...

Blacks killing blacks constitute a huge percentage of gun killings in America - the largest bloc of gun killings ... Blacks killing whites with guns also makes a big dent in the murder statistics ...

It is not white people killing anyone that makes up the lopsided percentage. And white gun owning Americans are not going to take the rap for all the shootings and give up their Constitutional Rights ...

Rant all you want -- guns are not the problem in America.. .the Ignorant black racists that are killing each other and killing whites that is the main problem --

GO READ THE FBI CRIME STATICS before you spout off ...

And please if possible try to separate a Terrorist action by Islamic Radicals from the other incidents - This couple made bombs too - had a bomb factory in their home - let's ban bombs too... OH ... I forgot they are banned...

The number of so called mass shootings has skyrocketed under President Obama as compare to the time periods of all other Presidents .... Could it be that Obama's spreading of divisiveness and racial hate and fanning the flags of black racism towards whites could explain the problem?

Again - go look at the statistics before ranting ...

I did look up the FBI stats & unless I misunderstand your points they counter your argument.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Edited December 5, 2015 by simple1

[OMGImInPattaya]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.

He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.

Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Exactly! Can any of you guns for everyone advocates please explain why this should not be the case?

Because the first two are already in effect and as for the third, no insurance should be required to exercise a constitutional right. Maybe we should require speech insurance in case one libels or defames someone while exercising their First Amendment rights.

[willyumiii]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.

He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.

Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Exactly! Can any of you guns for everyone advocates please explain why this should not be the case?

Because the first two are already in effect and as for the third, no insurance should be required to exercise a constitutional right. Maybe we should require speech insurance in case one libels or defames someone while exercising their First Amendment rights.

You seem to be confused.

The first ammendment is all about freedom of the press and has nothing to do with guns.

Also, can you tell me where in the U.S. people aare required to have a licence to operate a gun and are required to prove they are physicaly and mentaly healthy enough to operate one before renewing that licence?

[Seastallion]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.

He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.

Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Yes, or....

[stevenl]

Almost all the so called mass shootings of multiple people in America in the past several years have been in Gun Free Zones or buildings... No way to defend one's self. People are sitting ducks.

And it does not matter what Gun Grabbers want ... the Second Amendment is not going to change...

The Incident in California a few days ago was a Terrorist action done by radical Muslim Terrorists... the FBI now admits it was a Terrorist Action... Paris is a gun free zone and the country of France is tightly gun controlled but radical Islamic Terrorists shot well over one hundred... because no one who was a target could shoot back...

No one in the building in California could shoot back - as they did not have guns...

No amount of breast beating by Gun haters and Gun grabbers will change the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .... Society has to change ...

Blacks killing blacks constitute a huge percentage of gun killings in America - the largest bloc of gun killings ... Blacks killing whites with guns also makes a big dent in the murder statistics ...

It is not white people killing anyone that makes up the lopsided percentage. And white gun owning Americans are not going to take the rap for all the shootings and give up their Constitutional Rights ...

Rant all you want -- guns are not the problem in America.. .the Ignorant black racists that are killing each other and killing whites that is the main problem --

GO READ THE FBI CRIME STATICS before you spout off ...

And please if possible try to separate a Terrorist action by Islamic Radicals from the other incidents - This couple made bombs too - had a bomb factory in their home - let's ban bombs too... OH ... I forgot they are banned...

The number of so called mass shootings has skyrocketed under President Obama as compare to the time periods of all other Presidents .... Could it be that Obama's spreading of divisiveness and racial hate and fanning the flags of black racism towards whites could explain the problem?

Again - go look at the statistics before ranting ...

Obama's spreading of divisiveness? You have got to be kidding, the only ones spreading divisiveness are the Republicans who without any own ideas are only opposing everything.

[OMGImInPattaya]

In the case of he San Bernardino massacre, the alleged terrorist purchased his guns 4 years ago. He was reportedly a law abiding, educated US born citizen. Nothing in his background suggested he was dangerous. Nothing at the time of the purchase would have given just cause to stop him from purchasing the weapons, even if there were lengthy waiting periods, or more intensive screenings.
He was in Saudi Arabia a year ago where he allegedly became radicalized. One could say that he should have been investigated at the time and had his guns seized.
Well, many of the people now whinging about his guns would have been up in arms if this religious muslim had been profiled and singled out. He had legal rights. Don't tell me that the gun control lobby now embraces Trump's totalitarian approach to muslims?

In respect to the Planned Parenthood killer, he too owned firearms dating back some time. Although odd, he had done nothing to suggest that he was dangerous. Had someone singled him out to take away his guns because he was an alleged wacko, we'd have seen claims of discrimination. The fact is, that this man would have found another way to kill, most likely with a vehicle where he would have run people down.

The issue has gone way beyond easy access to guns. It's now an issue of selfishness and moral collapse. All the taboos of rational society have been ruptured. We are witnessing Sodom & Gomorah on speed. This will not end nicely.

This is why guns should be treated the same way vehicles are in the U.S.

1) Ownership registration.

2) A licence required to operate one, after proving you know how to operate ( and store) one safely, and are mentaly and physically healthy...that is renewed every few years to be sure you are still mentaly and phisically healthy.

3) And liability insurance to cover any damage you may cause.

Exactly! Can any of you guns for everyone advocates please explain why this should not be the case?

Because the first two are already in effect and as for the third, no insurance should be required to exercise a constitutional right. Maybe we should require speech insurance in case one libels or defames someone while exercising their First Amendment rights.

You seem to be confused.

The first ammendment is all about freedom of the press and has nothing to do with guns.

Also, can you tell me where in the U.S. people aare required to have a licence to operate a gun and are required to prove they are physicaly and mentaly healthy enough to operate one before renewing that licence?

My analogy went right over your head...well, I'm not gonna explain it to you.

As to your second point, most states, including where this latest Islamic terrorist attack took place, California.