Tragic shooting in San Bernardino

Irvinecommuter said:
eyephone said:
We are worst off under Obama than Bush.

Really?  I didn't realize that Obama got us into two wars and drove the country into the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression.

Obama is soft on Terrosim that's the bottom line.
 
peppy said:
eyephone said:
We are worst off under Obama than Bush.

Speak for yourself only ...

It's only after the Paris incident, he thinks there is a problem. The Iran nuke deal is a joke. The Ferguson Effect - cops are afraid to make arrests. I can go on and on.
 
eyephone said:
peppy said:
eyephone said:
We are worst off under Obama than Bush.

Speak for yourself only ...

It's only after the Paris incident, he thinks there is a problem. The Iran nuke deal is a joke. The Ferguson Effect - cops are afraid to make arrests. I can go on and on.

By all accounts, ISIS was being pushed back and their territory was shrinking prior to Paris.  So, he was not wrong with the information he had.  No one obviously predicted the Paris attack.

Iran nuke deal is a joke according to whom?

Cops are afraid to make arrests of whom?
 
California massacre victim ranted about Muslims on Facebook

By Sophia Rosenbaum and Laura Italiano December 3, 2015 | 2:07pm

One of the victims of the San Bernardino massacre was a Messianic Jew who filled his Facebook page with condemnations of Muslims and impassioned screeds against jihadist terror.

?On behalf of this guy? You can stick your Million Muslim March up your asses,? victim Nicholas Thalasinos posted on Sept. 11, 2013, alongside a photo of a shirtless victim plummeting to his death from the burning World Trade Center.

Another post from October 2013 included a photograph of another man plummeting to his death from the Trade Center. Above it, Thalasinos posted the quote, ??The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer? ? Barack Hussein Obama.?

References to Israel and ?Turbanheads? fill his pages.

Under ?Education,? Thalasinos listed on Facebook, ?Studied Conservatism at Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies.?

His last post, made Tuesday, was a response to a Ukrainian man, Med Ali Zarouk, who?d posted, ?You will never sucsseed[sic] to make a country for jews, because you are criminals and cowards? soon you ll get your ass kicked, you will die dand never see israel as country believe me never.?

Thalasinos responded, ?My new hobby appears to be BLOCKING PAGAN ANTISEMITIC TROGLODYTES so I?m just passing this along to warn others.?

Facebook friends poured out condolences Thursday, praising the father of two adult sons as a pro-life activist and crusader for Christ.

?He loved Messiah and I rejoice in knowing he is rejoicing with the ONE he has longed to meet,? responded one religious Facebook friend, Juda Myers.

Thalasinos? wife, Jennifer Thalasinos, gathered numerous heartfelt condolence messages on her own Facebook page Thursday.

?May god comfort you and bring you peace,? wrote one friend. ?You are blessed to have been his loving wife,? wrote another.

Officials say they will release victim identities later Thursday.
 
Ouch. I can only imagine the coworkers discomfort in the office when those two crossed paths.

Reminds me of a class I had back in the day with a Israeli woman and Palestiain woman.  Screaming matches were common and near to  physical fights before one or the other would storm out. 

Today, that would be pretty concerning
 
nosuchreality said:
Ouch. I can only imagine the coworkers discomfort in the office when those two crossed paths.

Reminds me of a class I had back in the day with a Israeli woman and Palestiain woman.  Screaming matches were common and near to  physical fights before one or the other would storm out. 

Today, that would be pretty concerning

#jclife
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Something snapped with the couple...I was shocked at the 6 month baby thing as well.  I feel like there will be a combination of factor...like Boston Marathon bomber.  I don't feel like it's straight up terrorism because no terror groups have stepped up and claim responsibility.
It's probably a mix of terrorism and more.  A typical person doesn't just set up an IED factory in their garage and have IED's ready to go. 

Rumor is, there was a bunch of people removing boxes of stuff a day or two before.  The neighbor was suspicious but didn't say anything because he was afraid to be labeled racist.  (that's the rumor).
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Or that we have been so desensitize about mass shooting that no one cares anymore.  Sandy Hook was the epitome of mass shooting and no one cared after a few week.
A week?  Perhaps if you live very secluded.  IMO, you are painting a very inaccurate picture of that situation.  That one was a very hot issue for months.
 
Were the guns used already banned in California?

"Federal authorities confirmed the two assault rifles had been bought legally "
 
riznick said:
Were the guns used already banned in California?

"Federal authorities confirmed the two assault rifles had been bought legally "

But you can buy them in other states legally and bring them into California...Nevada and Arizona have almost no gun control laws.

Also, gun manufacturers and gun sellers constantly try to bypass gun control laws by making small and inconsequential changes to the gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

That's why we need real gun control on a nationwide/federal level, otherwise it's like trying to catch the ocean with a bucket.
 
riznick said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Or that we have been so desensitize about mass shooting that no one cares anymore.  Sandy Hook was the epitome of mass shooting and no one cared after a few week.
A week?  Perhaps if you live very secluded.  IMO, you are painting a very inaccurate picture of that situation.  That one was a very hot issue for months.

I meant few weeks...but it also came with the ridiculous argument that teachers and school administrators be armed.  Gun control legislation was defeated five months after the incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#U.S._reactions
 
eyephone said:
This is why the democrats will not win the White House in 2016.

#nationalsecurity

You wish...HRC has the highest poll numbers of all presidential candidates on national secruity.  You want Donald Trump or Ted Cruz handling national security?
 
Irvinecommuter said:
riznick said:
Were the guns used already banned in California?

"Federal authorities confirmed the two assault rifles had been bought legally "

But you can buy them in other states legally and bring them into California...Nevada and Arizona have almost no gun control laws.

Also, gun manufacturers and gun sellers constantly try to bypass gun control laws by making small and inconsequential changes to the gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/u...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

That's why we need real gun control on a nationwide/federal level, otherwise it's like trying to catch the ocean with a bucket.
IMO, no realistic gun control laws would have prevented this particular incident.  There have been other incidents that gun control laws may have affected, but not this one.  Those people knew that their guns were illegal.  If they didn't get those particular guns, they would have gotten something else.  They were building bombs in their garage.  It might possibly even be fortunate that something set those people off yesterday because I think the longer they sat on their nest egg of explosives, the more dangerous they would become and even more people would have died.

I'm not necessarily against changing the 2nd amendment, but consider this.  We live in a very sheltered place.  We are one of the safest cities in the US.  It's very easy for us to say "no guns".  There are a lot of areas that are unfortunately a lot more dangerous.  It might not be fair for us to tell others in more dangerous neighborhoods that they can't buy weapons to protect themselves or their homes.  How does a 100 lb woman put fear into a 200 lb attacker?

What "real gun control" rules do you think would work?  If so, how?  How would they affect the outcomes?  What would the pros be?  What would the cons be?
 
Dance statistics....dance...

We?ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here?s why.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 ? a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

With record gun sales in this country, statistical gun violence has actually declined.  It reminds me of the global warming crowd as we have been pumping record amounts of CO2 in to the atmosphere but global temperatures haven't moved in 19 years...but that's another thread.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
eyephone said:
This is why the democrats will not win the White House in 2016.

#nationalsecurity

You wish...HRC has the highest poll numbers of all presidential candidates on national secruity.  You want Donald Trump or Ted Cruz handling national security?

Just say her name. Sending classified emails through her personal email is a joke. The handling of Bengazi as Secretary of State is a joke. This is the funny part, she voted for the Iraq war, and now Hilary says it's a mistake. (Flip flop)

Don't get me started on her vote against Bush tax cuts.


 
riznick said:
It's very easy for us to say "no guns". 

That is the conundrum for the gun control advocates.  People are more likely to be passionate about defending their own rights than to take rights away from others.  Politicians know that they may or may not gain votes from gun control sympathizers by taking rights away but they surely will lose votes from gun owners if they do.

This incident is no longer a boon to gun control advocates now that the shooters' links to ISIS are becoming clear.  You're not going to be able to stop international jihadists with gun control laws.
 
Happiness said:
riznick said:
It's very easy for us to say "no guns". 

That is the conundrum for the gun control advocates.  People are more likely to be passionate about defending their own rights than to take rights away from others.  Politicians know that they may or may not gain votes from gun control sympathizers by taking rights away but they surely will lose votes from gun owners if they do.

This incident is no longer a boon to gun control advocates now that the shooters' links to ISIS are becoming clear.  You're not going to be able to stop international jihadists with gun control laws.

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.  Australia had a similar debate almost 20 years...same arguments against it.  Australia is still free even without guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

Also, perfect should not be the enemy of good.  The goal shouldn't be to prevent all incidents of terrorism or shooting...reducing them is a worthwhile goal already.

You can't stop international terrorists but you can make them acquiring firearms much more difficult.  For example, NRA is blocking a bill to not allow people on terror watch lists to buy guns.
 
Back
Top