America's bizarre reaction to mass shootings

[hansgruber]

A 15 billion dollar industry wont go away. Capitalism always wins.

[jadee]

I have to marvel at how resistant US congressmen are to even the slightest change regarding gun laws - it's none of my business as I'm not American but it's just breathtaking - they express shock, sadness and outrage, then choose not to support a law that people on the terrorism watch list can't buy guns. On some level, it's impressive.

[sirineou]

inappropriate reply on my part

So I self moderated my reply out to save Scot some time

Now noone would know how stupid I can be, only how stupid I am

Edited December 6, 2015 by sirineou

[Scott]

An inflammatory remark has been removed along with reply.

[sean in udon]

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

Wow.

In the UK, there's usually a designated driver for a party. Or hire a mini bus and driver.

What a fun place America is when you have a designated driver who doesn't drink AND a designated trained shooter who doesn't drink. Or maybe he/she volunteers for both duties.

Perhaps a whole new business opportunity. Have your party at our secure facility with heavily armed guards.

[Credo]

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

Wow.

In the UK, there's usually a designated driver for a party. Or hire a mini bus and driver.

What a fun place America is when you have a designated driver who doesn't drink AND a designated trained shooter who doesn't drink. Or maybe he/she volunteers for both duties.

Perhaps a whole new business opportunity. Have your party at our secure facility with heavily armed guards.

No need, just don't let people back in once they leave. If you have to go home to get your guns, ammo and tactical gear, you shouldn't be allowed back into the party.

[gudtymchuk]

Now here is a real problem solver....

Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students Friday to carry concealed weapons on campus to counter any possible armed attack, saying that “we could end those Muslims before they walk in.”

“Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,” Falwell told students at the Christian school.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/06/liberty-university-president-encourages-students-to-carry-gun-on-campus/?intcmp=hpbt2

Ok, let the Fox News bashing begin...

[gudtymchuk]

Terrorists armed with knives attack in London...today.

Read the news. Guns or no guns....

We are dealing with terrorists.....plain now for all to see. The incident in both California...and today..in England...not because of gun laws.

get with the program.

exactly the point,

if the terrorist in England had guns available to him , would he be using a knife?

How frecking naive can you be? Jihadis killed 3000 on Sept 11, without firing a shot. Another 200 were killed on a train in Spain without one shot being fired. 100's more killed in embassy bombings and not one shot was fired... and on and on.... It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks anywhere, anytime.

who said "anywhere anytime"???

I would settle for some, but if you want to stop terrorists attacks "everywhere everytime" go ahead , I am all for it

what's your plan???

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

[sirineou]

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

Wow.

In the UK, there's usually a designated driver for a party. Or hire a mini bus and driver.

What a fun place America is when you have a designated driver who doesn't drink AND a designated trained shooter who doesn't drink. Or maybe he/she volunteers for both duties.

Perhaps a whole new business opportunity. Have your party at our secure facility with heavily armed guards.

No need, just don't let people back in once they leave. If you have to go home to get your guns, ammo and tactical gear, you shouldn't be allowed back into the party.

yes but if the people in the party had to go home to get their guns, wont these who in OMGImInParraya opinion would have killed the terrorists , have to go home to get their guns also?

or maybe they should have asked the terrorists to pretty please wait while we go home to het our guns also, after all it is only fair

[sirineou]

exactly the point,

if the terrorist in England had guns available to him , would he be using a knife?

How frecking naive can you be? Jihadis killed 3000 on Sept 11, without firing a shot. Another 200 were killed on a train in Spain without one shot being fired. 100's more killed in embassy bombings and not one shot was fired... and on and on.... It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks anywhere, anytime.

who said "anywhere anytime"???

I would settle for some, but if you want to stop terrorists attacks "everywhere everytime" go ahead , I am all for it

what's your plan???

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

Edited December 6, 2015 by sirineou

[casualbiker]

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

BUT they wouldn't have been properly trained.. That's the point isn't it. There is NO necessity to have ANY training before purchase. Yet you do to drive a car etc.. Something isn't right there!

[sirineou]

I am watching the Sunday morning news programs and since one of the terrorist was a US citizen, they are calling for expanding the NSA surveillance program.

I was wondering how long it would had taken them to go there.

Soon they will be calling that women wear burkas to protect them from terrorists

Oh and the Air Force is running out of bombs to fight ISIS it seems they have being using so many of them,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/05/us-air-force-will-need-more-bombs-for-isis.html

No I was not watching Faux news but I did not want the right to say it is a liberal lie, and provided a Faux link

I wonder how much bombs cost? Who needs universal health care, o funding education,or safety for out cityzens when we can liberate Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

[gudtymchuk]

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns” not on the state’s roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

[puukao]

normal reaction. attacked = find ways to protect oneself.

no guns = no America to begin with

no guns = criminals wanting to commit more crimes

no guns = worse military

so you are a criminal and thinking of robbing someone.....do it in a city with no gun laws or strict gun laws?

would a "bizarre reaction" to being attacked by another country be to mobilize the military?

you fight guns with guns.

[OMGImInPattaya]

It is not cliche. It is reality. Gun violence is a major cause of premature mortality in the US. The ghouls in the NRA, the weapons industry, and their pimps in the US congress just do not want it talked about. They only want more sales of guns. Nothing else.

I hate to say it but I really think the pictures of all the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook elementary should have been publicised.

You almost got it right, but next time, put your emphasis on the violence and not on the guns.

[MiKT]

"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.

You people who dont care about life need to tell us people with a life we would like to keep how one individual can legally purchase 5000+ rounds of amo in a relatively short time without raising some kind of flag?

Probably you give them a license for a machine gun. My god how pathetic you Fox newsers appear to the rest of the world with your anti reasonable gun control rants. What a lot of scared wimps the US has been brainwashed into by one or two raggi pacs. If only Americans knew anything about the rest of the world they might be able to get these infinitesimal pinpricks into perspective. Judging by the number of guns sold in the US over the last 3 days, it makes you wonder who really paid these so-called terrorists.

[MiKT]

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.

Yada, yada, "inherent right of man" (to bear arms) yada, yada, yada, all utter bs.

[nithisa78]

In the UK, firearms officers are psychologically-profiled before they are accepted for that role (during the time on the job they are also very closely supervised/controlled).

".....Candidates are required to gain approval from their superiors before embarking on a series of interviews, psychological and physical fitness tests, medical examinations and assessment days, before permission to commence firearms training is given".

Why on earth would one not require Joe public to do the same?!

You have my vote.

[OMGImInPattaya]

"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.

You people who dont care about life need to tell us people with a life we would like to keep how one individual can legally purchase 5000+ rounds of amo in a relatively short time without raising some kind of flag?

Probably you give them a license for a machine gun. My god how pathetic you Fox newsers appear to the rest of the world with your anti reasonable gun control rants. What a lot of scared wimps the US has been brainwashed into by one or two raggi pacs. If only Americans knew anything about the rest of the world they might be able to get these infinitesimal pinpricks into perspective. Judging by the number of guns sold in the US over the last 3 days, it makes you wonder who really paid these so-called terrorists.

Since you asked I'll tell you. Someone with a gun club or buying for a large group of friends or family who are going to have a day or weekend outing at the firing range may very easily go through thousands of rounds of ammunition. That's why sales of large amounts of it are nothing unusual. Of course, you fanatical gun haters wouldn't know this because you've never fired a gun nor have you ever been around others who enjoy guns for fun and sport.

And that's the nub of the problem...your kind really know nothing about guns or gun culture but you think you know something about them. And that something is that they are dangerous and should only be handled by police or armed services personnel and their possession and use by anyone else should be prohibited. That ain't gonna happen but you're welcome to keep pounding sand.

[sirineou]

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns” not on the state’s roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

[gudtymchuk]

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease “Certain Students”

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns” not on the state’s roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Really? Thats your response after confessing you weren't advocating a ban on guns, just restrictions and when questioned about those restrictions, you come back with this? Thats all you got?

How about "I hope mine is higher velocity, bigger caliber, larger capacity and the other guy is slower" restrictions.. works for me.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Whats my plan?

Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease Certain Students

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease Certain Students

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of unsafe handguns not on the states roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Instead of background checks and registries of all gun purchasers and their guns, I'd feel safer if their were background checks and registries of all muslims.

[sirineou]

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

....

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns” not on the state’s roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Really? Thats your response after confessing you weren't advocating a ban on guns, just restrictions and when questioned about those restrictions, you come back with this? Thats all you got?

How about "I hope mine is higher velocity, bigger caliber, larger capacity and the other guy is slower" restrictions.. works for me.

Apparently did not work for all the people that died

[casualbiker]

Whats my plan?


Well we could all just throw up our hands and capitulate......

Politics ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease Certain Students
ISLAMIC TAKEOVER: Popular University Announces 911 Remembrance Day Will Now Be BANNED To Appease Certain Students

On the other hand just kill the B*stards......

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment
would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.
So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of unsafe handguns not on the states roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?
Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Instead of background checks and registries of all gun purchasers and their guns, I'd feel safer if their were background checks and registries of all muslims.

In America? Why? Do you HONESTLY think that the 53,000 Americans killed or injured by guns in 2014 were ALL killed or injured by Muslim terrorists?

[sirineou]

Notice you did not address the "who said anywhere any time" comment

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

So gun restriction is your preferred "fix". Thats what you profess, right? Don't wanna take anything out of context.

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of unsafe handguns not on the states roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Instead of background checks and registries of all gun purchasers and their guns, I'd feel safer if their were background checks and registries of all muslims.

a religious litmus test? I love to heat the voices i your heads it must me something awful

Oh wait let's suspend the Constitution

[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.

Yada, yada, "inherent right of man" (to bear arms) yada, yada, yada, all utter bs.

Witness the "low information voter."

[chuckd]

would you like to address the "It's really stupid to believe a ban on guns is going to stop terrorist attacks" who said Ban guns ?? restricting ownership is not a ban.

So your plan is to "On the other hand just kill the B*stards......"

I'll give you this, it is a simple plan

Here is a synopsis of the California Restrictive Gun Laws.

Among other things, California:

• Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check;
• Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license;
• Bans most assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, and prohibits the sale or transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Requires all firearms purchasers to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, after passing a written test;
• Regulates gun shows in a comprehensive manner;
• Limits handgun purchases to one per person per month;
• Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns” not on the state’s roster of approved handguns;
• Imposes a ten-day waiting period prior to the sale or transfer of a firearm;
• Maintains permanent records of firearm sales;
• Gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon; and
• Gives local governments authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, although the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

In addition, in 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

So how'd that work out for the San Bernardino 14?

Tell us how restrictions would have prevented the Jihadi massacre in California.

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Really? Thats your response after confessing you weren't advocating a ban on guns, just restrictions and when questioned about those restrictions, you come back with this? Thats all you got?

How about "I hope mine is higher velocity, bigger caliber, larger capacity and the other guy is slower" restrictions.. works for me.

Apparently did not work for all the people that died

They were all murdered in a gun free zone.

[sirineou]

Apparently the Terrorists did not have any trouble getting their weapons so I guess you would agree that the litany of laws you provided were insufficient

Really? Thats your response after confessing you weren't advocating a ban on guns, just restrictions and when questioned about those restrictions, you come back with this? Thats all you got?

How about "I hope mine is higher velocity, bigger caliber, larger capacity and the other guy is slower" restrictions.. works for me.

Apparently did not work for all the people that died

They were all murdered in a gun free zone.

. and your point is?

[chuckd]

Really? Thats your response after confessing you weren't advocating a ban on guns, just restrictions and when questioned about those restrictions, you come back with this? Thats all you got?

How about "I hope mine is higher velocity, bigger caliber, larger capacity and the other guy is slower" restrictions.. works for me.

Apparently did not work for all the people that died

They were all murdered in a gun free zone.

. and your point is?

Obvious.

[Credo]

What a 'bizarre' news story. The laws and culture of most countries are 'bizarre' to those not living there. Why lots of laws and rules exist in some countries are completely baffling.

In the US guns are a problem, but it is a US problem and has very little effect on others, except to give them one more thing to whine and complain about.