Another major shooting, this time in San Bernardino

swat

UPDATE at 5:11: Three heavily armed suspects are still at large, according to law enforcement. Fourteen people are dead; 14 people have been wounded. The target was apparently a social function involving local county government employees.

And as I note in the comments below, what’s the rationale for allowing the sale of body armor on the civilian market? I mean, other than feeding the paramilitary fantasies and ambitions of militia types?

UPDATE at 3:35:

According to both CNN and local media in San Bernardino, witnesses report seeing three heavily armed individuals leaving the scene of the shooting in a black SUV. If that turns out to be true, we’re not dealing with a disgruntled gunman but something more organized and also much more dangerous.

INITIAL POST:

Initial police and fire reports are that as many as 20 people have been shot in San Bernardino, Calif. Multiple fatalities are reported.

The local sheriff’s department reports that one to three shooters may be involved, although such preliminary reports often turn out to be overstated. The site of the shooting is the Inland Regional Center, a state government facility that offers services to the developmentally disabled. It would seem a strange site for a jihadist attack, but that’s admittedly conjecture.

There is no indication why that particular location was targeted, and no indication as of 3:15 p.m. that the shooter or shooters have been neutralized. Witnesses report seeing at least one heavily armed shooter, protected by body armor. SWAT teams are reportedly inside the facility.

I do not know what the answer to such tragedies might be. But the idea that we are helpless against them is unacceptable. The idea that such tragedies can become a commonplace occurrence, something that we just take for granted, is equally unacceptable.

 

Reader Comments 0

1479 comments
Penses
Penses

@Visual_Cortex 

"hate to say this, but that's probably not the best parable example to use given its provenance and the likelihood it wasn't really in Jesus' sermon-quiver.  Still your apparent objection to the death penalty is noted, glad to hear."

ROFL. First, it wasn't a "parable" - it was a historical account. Know the difference? Secondly, I would love to see you decoder ring for deciding what scriptures are in and which are out. Thirdly, I am NOT against the death penalty - God instituted it and Jesus suffered it.

Paul42
Paul42

SHEETZ.


Continuation with graphs and constituent parts.  Good stuff.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Time to hit the road the rest of the day. Ya'll have fun. And tell Finn I said hi. LOL! 

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

"DIA and you are not hunters at all.  Every hunter irregardless of their political persuasion hate people who take bush shots.  They are as bad as poachers."



The 8 pointer on the wall about 3 ft. behind my head would beg to differ....


And people who take bush shots are morons.


You still haven't answered my question.....

DawgDadII
DawgDadII

"The idea that such tragedies can become a commonplace occurrence, something that we just take for granted, is equally unacceptable."


Who is taking these tragedies for granted? Anyone? Name me one person. 


We've seen attacks by truly mad men and radicalized zealots, presumably now a woman with a six month old baby. Preventive measures would necessarily be very severe and undermine our freedoms of speech, religion, free assembly, limitations on search and seizure, and right to bear arms, just to be minimally effective, and those measures would be offensive to people of any political stripe except a pure tyrant. I mean, who knows whether or not Jay Bookman is the next nut case? The answer is nobody truly knows what is in someone's heart, mind, and soul.

honested
honested

@DawgDadII 

Well, there are steps that can be taken first.

Eliminate all the un-Constitutional restrictions on Abortion, encourage expansion of the number of clinics and place armed guards with orders to 'shoot to kill' outside each and every one of them.

Voila, elimination of one sort of crazed killer without affecting the availablilty of guns.

TetoLeo
TetoLeo

So if we completely outlaw guns.....our even massively strengthen gun regulations and test for ownership.........

I have 2 questions.....

1. What do we do about the nearly 270 million guns already in the USA? Some estimates put it at more guns than people here.....

2. With our poor at best border security. What our how do we intend to stop guns from coming across the border, much like how the guns in the Paris attack were brought into France.

Without those two questions having answers anyone calling for gun restriction is not serious about preventing this type of tragedy, but are only serious about limiting law abiding citizens from getting guns or making it much more difficult to do so.

honested
honested

@TetoLeo 

Completely outlawing guns is about as likely as imprisoning those who employ illegals.......

YET sensible regulations are entirely possible if we elect Congresspeople who are not owned by the National Retail Arms (NRA) cartel.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@TetoLeo 

What do we do about the nearly 270 million guns already in the USA? Some estimates put it at more guns than people here....

Considering how few people actually own most of them? Not unpossible. 

We can get kids to rat out Gramps if we need to.

TetoLeo
TetoLeo

Again I covered both outlawing and strengthening or testing for guns.

What is to stop anyone who wants one from getting it from Mexico, or Canada for that matter?

We had a full blown "war on drugs" made many of them illegal, even made stiffer crimes for marijuana. How is that working out? Seems weed is easier to buy by the year and more potent.

How would a similar "war on guns" produce any different results?

honested
honested

@InTheMiddle2 @honested @TetoLeo 

Sensible does not require passing muster with the NRA cartel.

It only requires passing Constitutional muster and attaining support of the Majority of Americans.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@SimpleTruths @DownInAlbany @TetoLeo 

Outcomes, you say?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

honested
honested

@InTheMiddle2 @honested @TetoLeo 

Protecting gun owners?

From what?

I'm a gun owner and a life member of the 'cartel', but all they do is deluge me with BS about who to vote for and attempt to instill me with fear about people 'coming to take my guns'.

I didn't ask them to get between me and my government, the forced themselves into the equation.

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@honested @InTheMiddle2 @TetoLeo A lot of groups lobby. Unions for their members (wether they like it or not), Trade associations, environmental groups, etc... Should gun owners not be represented.

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

"No guns available-100%"


At least one of you libbies is being honest...  Any more want to own up?

honested
honested

@fiftythreepercenter 

I find it hilarious that in your warped world view, there are two options:

No guns available.

Let any fool buy any gun they want any time for any reason. 


I guess the conserrrrrrrvative mindset and attached philosophy limits the choices.

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@fedup52 @fiftythreepercenter No, fed, it's a serious question.  What "good" would come from it?  If you can't answer the question for YOU, how can you answer it for me, doom, td, DIA, and others?


Speak up and support your idea.

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@honested @fiftythreepercenter "I find it hilarious that in your warped world view, there are two options:"


Talk about warped ^^^^^^^^..... 


And I'd be happy to prevent fools from buying guns, but I don't think you'd be willing to show your voter ID card at the counter.

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@fedup52 @InTheMiddle2 @fiftythreepercenter First you had to either smoke in the halls or in a smoking room, then you could only smoke outside, then you could only smoke in designated areas, now you cannot smoke in many parks and in some cases entire cities. What next. After all....it is for the greater good, the hell with freedom.

fedup52
fedup52

@fiftythreepercenter @fedup52 DIA and you are not hunters at all.  Every hunter irregardless of their political persuasion hate people who take bush shots.  They are as bad as poachers.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@InTheMiddle2 @fedup52 @fiftythreepercenter 

 First you had to either smoke in the halls or in a smoking room, then you could only smoke outside, then you could only smoke in designated areas, now you cannot smoke in many parks and in some cases entire cities.

And that was a bad thing why?