I read a book about the Columbine shooters several years ago, and as I recall, the author interviewed a researcher who said that in most crimes committed by more than one person, there is a leader and there is a follower; that the leader would end up committing the crime with or without the other person’s help but the follower would not have initiated on his or her own.
In the case of the SB shooting rampage, I’m getting a sense that the leader might have been the wife. What do others here think?
Right now, if parents report their concerns, nothing happens.
So, again, what is the proposed mechanism for denying guns to people who are mentally unstable? And how do we preserve the privacy rights of people who have mental illness and who are not trying to get guns? And what is the mechanism for removing guns from people who are dangerous to themselves or others?
Back to this attack-- the news said they found 12 unexploded bombs in the garage. Holy cow.
Wow, jym. Sounds like they were ready for further action.
@teriwtt have you seen the picture? I just saw it for the first time. .
There is a 5 year old holding a gun that is half the size of him. A FIVE year old. Not to mention there are 3 other babies/toddlers around those weapons.
What the actual !@#$ is wrong with people?!
Oh, and let’s not even get into the type of backlash that this would get from certain groups if this was a non-white family. I think the word “thug” might come to the fingertips of many (and that’s probably one of the nicer words.)
I showed the picture of the family to Mr R’s friend who is active military and clearly has extensive training in weapons. His response? “Uh… there is no way I’d ever let (1 year old niece’s name) that close to my gun… ever! And if I did, (sister) would kill me.” And they’re a pretty conservative, moderately pro-gun family.
I was stunned watching TV tonight. Seeing the family and friends still denying that this was terrorism. Still hanging on the workplace dispute mantra, despite a mountain of evidence of premeditation and evidence of contacts with radical Islamic groups.
I still maintain that the best way to stop violent acts like this is for good people to not be afraid to report suspicious activity. See something, say something. This is what the FBI director said on TV this evening.
I simply do not believe that no other people ever entered that condo in Redlands. Those who did must surely have seen the pipes, the gunpowder, the weapons, the ammo. It’s not a big place. Did the grandmother live with the terrorists? I am not clear on that. But I do not see how anyone could have been in that small condo and not seen this stuff.
I see people are asking for a law that already exist.
Lautenberg Amendment.
The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
No exemption for military or police. Starting in 1997, the military had to discharge any individuals who any misdemeanor domestic violence incidents in their past. Yearly, the DOD has to verify if any military members need to be discharged due to any domestic violence convictions.
There is some speculation that this attack may have been a semi-impulsive add on attack and been motivated by an ongoing argument with a co-worker. That is not to say that it isn’t terrorism. He had an ongoing religious and political dispute with one of the deceased and he may have meshed that grudge into his larger plan. That individual received a death threat the day before, apparently. It is possible that they fully expected to live through this and regroup for some other, more general and public target.
It doesn’t seem to be enforced. In particular, with the gun show loophole, anyone at all can buy a gun. Also, even in cases where the check is done, domestic violence protective orders aren’t always found. And police/judges don’t always insist that domestic abusers surrender their guns.
Someone was casing a movie theater close to the site of Wednesday’s shooting, on Monday night. The security guy there reported it to SB police. It is not known, will probably never be known, if that was related to the gun violence.
I haven’t read the thread, so forgive me if this has been addressed. Can anyone provide the rationale for allowing people who are on the federal Terrorist Watch List to buy guns?
There isn’t a rationale for that…besides the title of this thread being a mass shooting , can we acknowledge that this was a terror attack and guns are only one weapon for terrorists to use ?
If not guns, then bombs ( perhaps like the multiple pipe bombs found in the home of the perpetrators )
True that guns are only one weapon they use, but they are the predominant one. I’m not saying they are the only one, but they feature prominently in most domestic terrorist attacks.
But the question was: If we know or strongly suspect that a specific individual is a terrorist, to the extent that we won’t let them board an airplane, why do we allow them to legally amass an arsenal of assault rifles and ammo rounds?
If there’s something else in that bill preventing it from being passed, that thing (or things) should be removed.
Beating a dead horse, as many have already railed against it… but why on earth would we not trust someone to fly on a plane, yet trust them to own a firearm? That definitely should become a no-no, an automatic blackball. Other things that could help (apologies for plagiarism. hehe):
- Teaching/instilling gun security to owners
- Prosecuting people if their weapons are used harmfully by someone else (driving home the above point...)
- Preventing the mentally ill from owning firearms (how, though, without the removal of privacy? Do we just bite the bullet and pass/enforce it, even though the ACLU will be up in arms?)
- Make a FFL sign off on every single transaction. And that transaction goes into a database.
- Requiring periodic licensing
- Regarding CF's idea to heavily tax ammo -- maybe, but now you're going to hack off all the target shooters and hunters. People who own a gun only for self-defense, the taxes might not affect too much. Certainly a sensible compromise could be reached.
- Beef up police/ATF/FBI efforts to track and obliterate the illegal gun trade.
Maybe a sensible goal would be to decrease per-capita gun violence by 50% by year ten. Maybe 25% by year five…
Time to get rid of guns.
The NY Times has an editorial on the front page. This is the first time the NY Times has published an editorial on its front page in 95 years!
The target shooters, maybe-- and there might be some way to get around that, like not taxing ammunition that is bought and used at a firing range. But I can’t see why a hunter would be using enough ammunition for an ammunition tax to make a difference. Certainly not a hunter of mammals; maybe a dove hunter uses a lot of ammo?
But… hunting, collecting (they’re purty!), target shooting, self-defense, and to fight (albeit unlikely) attempts at tyranny. These are good, or at least acceptable, reasons to own firearms. And the 2nd Amendment. Liberty.
We need sensible and Constitutional updates to our laws to decrease gun violence while preserving (sane and well-behaved…) Americans’ right to bear arms. IMO.
dstark, I saw that NYT was going to have its first front-page editorial since 1920. Wow. “Disgrace” is the right word. The rest of the world thinks we’re absolutely insane to put up with this. IMO they’re right.
prezbucky – the “fight gubmint tyranny” is not a reason to own firearms, not with the kinds of weapons the government has in 2015.
Florida has this (well, aside from the taking weapons away—this is Florida, after all) with the Baker Act; some other states have a similar process.
The problem: It’s been misused in the past, sometimes severely. How do you allow for involuntary detention and observation for 72 hours when it can be nefariously used? (Think building a paper trail for a likely child custody battle, or a horrible parent-child relationship or, to refer to a couple really, really bad cases that have happened, a doctor-patient relationship gone south.)
It’s a good idea in theory. In practice, not so much.
And no, I don’t know the solution.
Also—I’m in Scotland on business right now. I’ve spoken to multiple people who are considering canceling their upcoming trips to the US (and switching to Canada, or Australia, or Mallorca, or whatever) over the steady drumbeat of news about gun violence coming out. At least one of these is a planned 3-month stay.
Even in a recent down year (2012), international tourists pumped $126.2 billion into the US economy. (The US is by far the largest recipient of foreign tourist spending.) That isn’t a huge share of the US economy, but even a bit under 1% is enough to make a difference in the sort of recovery we’re in now (and, of course, it’s a much bigger share in some regions of the country). If we scare off half or even a quarter of our international tourists, we’re hurting ourselves pretty badly, really.
While I’m all for any effective political dialogue that reduces gun violence, I’d also like to see opportunities for US Muslims, Jews and Christians to stand together publically. A “No Fear Here” campaign. In comparison to many other countries, we have many significant, positive interfaith relationships throughout the US. This is a substantial strength of our country. We should utilize it.