No, this did not apply to people with concealed carry permits. Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permits. The rules are meant to prevent just any student, without a permit, from bringing a gun on campus.
There were armed students on campus at the time of the shooting. They didn’t run toward the shooting because they, wisely, knew that police would not be able to tell if they were good guys or the bad guy.
These estimates (no reference provided, - we are just expected to accept it as a given, but whatever) suggest that 30% of people, it all were given CC permits, would have a firearm on them. So lets see, there were 75-80 people in the conference room when the shooting began http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-san-bernardino-conference-room-shooting/story?id=35588893 , so in this hypothetical world, as many as 24 might have been carrying. But as far as we know, no one had a weapon. Zero. Don’t know if it was prohibited on site (that would be very reasonable) and even if they allowed it, how many would bring their weapon to a party? And lets continue the hypothetical- if someone did have a weapon, how long would it take them to get it out, remove the safety and have the where-with-all in such chaos to shoot. More likely the shooters would see this person trying to get out a gun and that person would be the next victim.
The accusation that the article linked about home shopping network starting a gun show with online purchasing available was hyperbole is ridiculous. It is fact. Not hyperbole. And that it sickened my stomach is also fact, not hyperbole. The fact that people who may be unable to get out for their homes for whatever reason can watch hyped up tv shows that promote the sale of guns does truly sicken me. There are people who do not or cannot drive for a variety or reasons. Not sure I want to make it easier for them to purchase a gun and call uber to get a ride to the local store to pick it up.
Today is the 35th anniversary of John Lennon’s death. Shot by a disturbed individual with a gun. We have not progressed in 35 years, and access to good mental health care has become harder and harder.
Some gun enthusiasts are going to pound their constitutional rights down everyone’s throats, and any difference of opinion will be shot down with insults and condescension. I’d prefer to remember John Lennon on this sad anniversary, and remember, and listen to his poignant lyrics. RIP, John https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs
I have yet to see anyone propose a system that would be effective in keeping out ISIS sympathizers, ISIS ‘members’, or those who plan on coming here to commit terrorism from other terror groups. I suppose in keeping with what Jimmy Carter did, the government could ban anyone coming from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan and maybe other countries. That would be overbroad, I understand. But future ISIS fighters are going to lie on visa applications and background checks are only as good as the amount of effort that goes into them.
Even this new bill to restrict visa waivers relies on the person telling the US embassy officials that they were in Syria. Like anyone is really going to do that. It’s not like there’s a stamp for Syria on a passport when the border with Turkey is so porous.
I think that is what this new visa program is supposed to restrict. If you hold a French passport for example, if you say you’ve been to Syria in the last five years, you don’t get the visa waiver.
I think we are just going to have to live with the possibility of terrorism. Just like we live with the risk of car crashes, bathroom slip and falls, and every other possible cause of injury and death. Life isn’t risk-free and although we should certainly try to limit that risk, we will never eliminate it. But the chance of being killed in a terroristic attack in the US is lower than the chance of being hit by lightning so do we really want to sacrifice our ideals and values as a country to try and minimize that risk? And would driving a further wedge between the US and middle eastern Muslims really even serve that purpose? I think Trump is smart enough to know that his proposal is outrageous and he is just using it to impassion his supporters and give him an excuse to run a third party campaign if he so desires.
He also normalizes his extreme views and makes previously extreme sounding candidates and ideas seem moderate by comparison. He pushes the envelope of discussion way out in a direction that nobody would previously go in public and effectively moves the center with him.
" I think that is what this new visa program is supposed to restrict. If you hold a French passport for example, if you say you’ve been to Syria in the last five years, you don’t get the visa waiver. "
That is a start , but I don’t think radicalization is limited to just those hot spots.
We have already seen that with some of the other terror attacks that have occurred in the west ( Ft Hood comes to mind , as does Ottowa ) The will is there with sympathizers all over the world , and that is very troubling
And how would we know if someone’s been to Syria if they just went in without using their passport, like it’s currently being done by Jihadists crossing the Turkish border with smugglers? And other countries will issue a visa that is not put in the passport so there’s no record of it.
So if we all acknowledge there’s no way to stop people with bad intent from slipping into the U.S. on temporary visas, why can’t we agree it’s time to prevent them from obtaining a military-style weapon for killing people?
And even if there was a perfect screening method to keep certain people out, we still have a problem with the existence of American sympathizers and enablers.
I heard on the radio this morning that the FBI is going to arrest Enrique Marquez, the friend of Farook on a variety of charges: from visa fraud to aiding and abetting terrorism. He married the sister of Farook’s sister-in-law but never lived with her or even was around her much. She has a child with another man and is living with him.
Marquez and Farook are also alleged to have surveilled a local high school as a possible target for a terror attack. And Marquez violated the law by being a straw man purchaser for the rifles.
I have to believe that the mother will be arrested also. She HAD to have seen the pipe bombs and likely overheard conversations between the two killers.
From what I’m hearing the consensus seems to be that there is nothing we as a nation can do to prevent jihadis from entering the US and bad guys will always have access to weapons and explosives so we have to expect more terror attacks.
The only thing standing in the way of terror attacks is when ‘good’ people do nothing to report suspicious activities, which most likely means those closest to the terrorists ie. family, friends, and neighbors.