San Bernardino, CA Mass Shooting

@InfinityMan wrote

Here is a list of currently recognized terrorist organizations worldwide. It includes a smattering of communist groups (e.g., Shining Path) and national separatists groups (e.g., Irish National Liberation Army), but it is overwhelmingly dominated by Islamic groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups#Organizations_currently_officially_designated_as_terrorist_by_various_governments

The number of non-Islamic terrorist groups is barely a blip.

With the non-Islamic terrorist groups, it’s a fight over resources–that’s rational. With the Islamic terrorist groups, they basically just want us dead.

AlQaeda and ISIS are terrorist groups. I fail to see how this means they are many. Your post implied that there are millions of Muslims (1% of the Muslim population would roughly equal 15 million people). If there were 15 million terrorists - let alone Muslim terrorists - the world would be a very different place. ISIS, AlQaeda, Boko Haram and all other Islamist terror organizations number in the thousands (if that). And large parts of Syria were already destroyed by Assad when ISIS took over, Iraq was much the same after the war. But yes, it is remarkable, isn’t that the whole point? People are perplexed how a newly formed terror group managed to get such last traction in such a short period of time. They seem awfully organized too. I don’t recall reports of people joining AlQaeda like they are with ISIS; that’s why they’re so dangerous. If they managed to radicalize a woman (Tashfeen Malik) and through her radicalize her husband and supported them in this plot (if it doesn’t turn out to be a rogue operation) from over thousands of miles away, then they are certainly capable and of keeping hold of large swathes of land.

How am I ignoring the problem? By not losing my head and screaming “Terror, terror everywhere”? I find it useful to keep in sight who the real enemy is (Islamist terrorists), and I am very careful not to throw any generalizations about innocent people - especially if they number in the billions. And yes, Muslims seem to be the group with the largest targets on their heads, whether it’s from terrorism or Islamophobia.

I’ll repeat for the sake of clarity: The amount of Islamist terrorists in the world is small. I checked every single link in the article you linked: Most of these groups are affiliates of either AlQaeda, ISIS, or Boko Haram. So three terrorist groups, and many different sections. Yet, they don’t outnumber a small town, if that.

I don’t work to “rationalize” why terrorist groups do somethings. If you use terror as your persuasive tool, you lose the right to ask for whatever it is you wanted. Permanently. And I doubt Islamist terrorists - at least in ISIS- are that simplistic. There is no point in dumbing them down; I suspect they have a more sinister motive they are not revealing.

Most people who own guns keep them at their homes.

Most mass shootings do not take place at people’s homes.

Unless we’re planning to transform ourselves into a society where everyone carries a gun and is trained in its use – which doesn’t seem likely in a country where only a small number of people get military training – I don’t see how civilian ownership of guns would be of any benefit in defense against mass shootings.

Then they’re concluding that they will have a gun with them at work every day? And they’ll bring it with them every time they go to a concert or restaurant?

I like most of my colleagues, but I’m far more perturbed by the thought of all of them carrying guns than I am by the statistically unlikely threat of a mass shooting taking place at our offices or in the restaurant where we had our holiday luncheon last Friday.

Gun sales are way up and go up after every mass shooting. (see the article in today’s NY Times).

People feel that they must protect themselves because the government is not.

" I like most of my colleagues, but I’m far more perturbed by the thought of all of them carrying guns than I am by the statistically unlikely threat of a mass shooting taking place at our offices or in the restaurant where we had our holiday luncheon last Friday"

A number of my co-workers bring guns to work. I am infinitely grateful that they are willing to get the training and take the responsibility to protect the workplace, if needed. I am not willing to do it, because I figure I’d probably shoot myself in the foot, or leave the gun somewhere…but I feel much safer with them armed. I trust them with my life, anyways.

I don’t think most of them would bring their weapon to a holiday luncheon, unless they were at work, and it was coincidental. There are a few people who are very serious about it, and do carry their guns everywhere. I appreciate their dedication, as they are the ones with their eyes open, who will take action if ever it was necessary. You definitely want people like that to be the ones who are armed, but it’s not that I would want just anyone walking around with a gun all the time. These guys get mega background checks, and training.

“How am I ignoring the problem? By not losing my head and screaming “Terror, terror everywhere”? I find it useful to keep in sight who the real enemy is (Islamist terrorists), and I am very careful not to throw any generalizations about innocent people - especially if they number in the billions. And yes, Muslims seem to be the group with the largest targets on their heads, whether it’s from terrorism or Islamophobia.”

From what it sounds like, you have been trying to minimize the problem. Comparing it to other issues, other groups, saying it involves tiny numbers. While you say you are trying to prevent generalizations, it sounds like you are saying this is not a serious and pervasive problem.

Besides just the violence moving over into other countries, there are millions of refugees fleeing their homes. If that’s not a massive problem, I don’t know what is. And I’m afraid that this is just the beginning.

@busdriver11, because of the nature of your work, the idea of trusting your life to your colleagues comes naturally to you.

But most of us are not pilots. We don’t risk our lives on the job (except perhaps while commuting), and we don’t have that kind of relationship of trust with our colleagues. We’re also not screened the way you are. Many of us got our jobs with no background check whatsoever. The person who sits next to me could be a convicted felon or have a diagnosed mental illness. I would have no way of knowing, and the company would not have refused to hire the person for either of those reasons.

Do you think that the kind of situation you discuss – where some employees are armed and trained – could be successful in the places where most of us work – office buildings, medical facilities, schools, etc.?

"Do you think that the kind of situation you discuss – where some employees are armed and trained – could be successful in the places where most of us work – office buildings, medical facilities, schools, etc.?’

I think it could work well, depends. If someone had gone through many intense background checks, and was highly trained, and scrutinized pretty closely. If there were doubts about their mental stability, people could report it, have it be investigated, and they could lose their privilege. We have had people lose their gun carrying privileges. It couldn’t be open to just anyone, particularly when you say you don’t know if the person next to you has mental illness, or is a felon. and they had to be hired anyways.

Perhaps it could work, @busdriver11. I wonder whether most employers – in industries other than yours and a few others – would think it’s worth doing.

Statistics do not back positive outcomes with people carrying guns. People with opinions should check facts and statistics before they come up with ideas like people should be carrying heat.

If there are specific industries where it is helpful for employees to carry guns, I would like to see those facts.

When bad events happen, people have a tendency to think with their emotions rather than facts and intelligence.

Not good.

Oh heavens. Look what Jerry Falwell said at Liberty U’s convocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/president-of-liberty-university-urges-students-to-get-gun-permits.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
Lovely. Just lovely.

For a person with next to zero training, it is really hard to hit a small target a few yards away. It is even harder to hit a moving target. There is a reason people wear bullet-proof vests - the torso is the biggest target. I would not count on average Joe to take out a mass shooter without causing a lot of collateral damage. How many gun owners are good at shooting moving targets? I doubt many even fired their guns once.

Here is another issue. When adrenalin kicks in, even a small amount of training can go out of the window, so to speak. People who work in chemistry labs get trained to use fire extinguishers. You know, the PASS thing. Easier than eating a slice of cream pie! Yet I have seen folks mess up the extinguishers by forgetting to pull the safety pin - when trying to extinguish real lab fires…

(I know a little bit about guns. I have no desire to own one, and I have not shot one in ages. I was not that good at it. I have never shot a living thing and have no desire to do so.)

The day after the shooting, some people at my office were looking around wondering whether there would be any chance of getting out of the building from our third-floor offices if there was a shooting. (Probably not. There are only two stairwells and one elevator, and the elevator is right next to one of the stairwells. It would take only two people to cover all three exits.)

Some people were also very nervous about going to the annual holiday party, held at an outside location.

Yet we have no reason to think that our company would be threatened. Of course, nobody thought that the San Bernardino Health Department would be threatened, either.

The one thing I didn’t hear anyone say is “Some of us should have guns so we could defend ourselves in an attack.” But we’re in a blue state, and the company is two-thirds women. So perhaps such as reaction wouldn’t be expected.

I work with a bunch of 18-25 year olds on an alcohol saturated campus. No thanks on them all carrying guns.

@busdriver11 I bet a lot of your coworkers have former military training, given your profession. Most folks don’t work in that kind of environment. I think it makes a difference.

From page 11 of a now 56 page thread (almost 700 posts ago)

So much for that prediction. Perhaps best not to call posters reflexive or non-thinking, aw.

The idea that just because someone passes a background check for a gun, that it makes them a “good guy” is ridiculous.

Do you not realize that your post is rather illogical? If you and most of your colleagues (I assume that is more than a majority) are “perturbed” by carrying guns, then don’t! Therefore, it is impossible for "all’ of you to be carrying guns because you state you and most of your colleagues would not. Thus, your use of “all” is nonsensical.

However, you clearly have a “them” in mind, i.e, people who would carry. So why is it that because you and most of your colleagues would not carry guns, do you think you have the right to tell others (the “them” in your post) that because you decide not to be able to defend your life immediately and rather wait to be rescued that they cannot defend their lives pronto? Specifically, who gives you the moral right to tell others they have to wait and possibly get shot like you and most of your colleagues? I will answer it - you do not have that right; just like “the them” do not have the right to compel you and most of your colleagues to carry.

To carry or not carry is a personal choice and it really makes others not trust your motives when you write as if it would be compulsory or that everyone would be doing it, as both are flat-out false. When you need the extreme hyperbole to bolster your argument, then your argument, by definition, is extreme in itself.

If only the dead could talk - it would be interesting to know how many of the CA dead had your viewpoint and the statistics caught up to them. The mainstream media would not show this for their agenda is not longer objective journalism but a pro-gun control mouthpiece, but I am also willing to guess that several of the CA wounded also had your viewpoint and they are now seriously rethinking it.

talk about hyperbole…

@awcntdb, I think I mixed up two situations in my previous posts – one in which there’s an expanded right to carry a gun but nobody is required or pressured to do it, and one in which carrying a gun becomes mandatory or at least strongly encouraged.

Both of those situations are foreign to me, and I didn’t think through the differences between them well enough.

But in any case, carrying or not carrying a gun is not a personal choice at the company where I work. All weapons are prohibited on company property or while doing company business, regardless of whether you have a permit. So the employee who makes the decision to carry a gun is also making the decision to risk losing their job.