police officers and a crowd of people

On Wednesday, armed gunmen entered a social services facility in San Bernardino and killed at least 14 people. The Inland Regional Center serves more than 30,000 people with developmental disabilities like autism, epilepsy and cerebral palsy. We get the latest on the incident.

Guests:
Adam Lankford, criminal justice professor, University of Alabama; author of "The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters and Other Self-Destructive Killers"
Chief Richard Beary, police chief, University of Central Florida; former president, International Association of Chiefs of Police
Mark Follman, senior editor, Mother Jones magazine; his article "Inside the Race to Stop the Next Mass Shooter" is in the magazine's current issue
Esme Duprez, reporter, Bloomberg News Southern California Bureau

  • EIDALM

    There is very little doubt that this very sad extremely violent bloody incident ,the murder of innocent civilians at San Bernardino is a terrorists act most likely committed by some misled bloody idiots followers of the bogus not Islamic barbarians Daesh …This bloody act just adds to the extreme case of Islamophobia against people of the middle east and the Muslim world and will lead to increase of violence against both groups in the U S ,Europe ,and elsewhere….Again I not surprised about the timing of this incident with the hate spewed by the Republicans candidates and other hate and right wing groups in t5he U S and in Europe who have been advocating hate and want to stop Syrian refuges immigration to Europe or the U S by using this sad incident to label all refuges as potential terrorists …..

    • Skip Conrad

      “hate spewed by the Republicans candidates”
      What the Republicans candidates, DT in particular, have been doing is “calling it right”. You might call that hate. It doesn’t fit my definition.
      Rubio outright stated the enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism”. I might not totally agree with that statement, but I would certainly not call that hate speech.

      DT stated bad people are coming from Mexico, and a week later an American woman was murdered in public view in downtown San Francisco. DT stated bad people are coming with the Syrian migrants in Europe, and after the Paris attacks, an incriminating passport or two were discovered.

      Call it serendipity, call it luck, call it political skill, but DT is calling it correctly at the correct times. That’s why he is leading the pack.

      The way to counter any statement by your opponent its to label it hate speech. This is just a counterproductive distraction, which inhibits finding any solution. Only through free and open debate, can we ever solve this, whatever “this” may be.

  • EIDALM

    While the bloody terrorists Daesh followers are bunch of misled idiots who are totally violate all pillars of Islam by murdering innocent civilians ,Daesh leaders are paid agents for the U S ,Israel’s Neocons ,and the west….Daesh are paid togo on a mission destroy the middle east put a bloody violent face on Islam and the 1.6 billion Muslims across the world.

  • EIDALM

    Enough is enough ,is enough ,is enough ,how dare them these bloody terrorists Daesh whose numbers may add to few tens of thousands to terrorize the whole world…..It about time for all nations in the World to put an end to this violent barbarians who always murder innocent civilians and rape women and children ,so while Daesh murdered few hundreds in Europe and the U S ,they have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq ,Syria ,Libya ,and elsewhere in the Arab world ,,

  • EIDALM

    I would like to ask everyone who benefits from the bloody actions of Daesh ,.it is not people of the middle east ,in fact both groups make near 99.999999999% of Daesh victims ,,those who benefits are the ones who have been advancing the false concept of the clash of civilization and Islamophobia , the likes of Daniel Pipe ,Bernard Lewis ,Frank Gafne ,Michael Ladeen,and the PNACERS ,the likes of Paul Wolfwitz ,Bill Kristol and the rest of the 24 who signed the 98 page PNAC who had invaded Iraq based on lies and now they are paying the enemy from within to continue regime change and the destruction of each and all of the countries of the Arab world.

  • John

    It should not be legal for people to own guns.

    • Seunghee Shim

      totally agree.

    • Fed-Up

      Why not?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    In the San Bernardino massacre the individuals also had BOMBS that were detonated by the bomb squad so it’ a bigger issue than firearms. It’s people hell bend on killing as many people as possible that we need to be concerned about. You can restrict firearm use all you want, even though criminals will find a way to make a firearm, including the new 3D printers. We have a bigger problem than firearms.

  • Mood_Indigo

    1. Strong religious beliefs and recent travel to Saudi Arabia
    2. Extensive pre-planning and weapons practice
    3. Killers armed with explosive devices
    4. I read somewhere that the killers filmed the attack

    Current conclusion: we don’t have any idea what could have caused this two folks to go on the killing spree. Must have been some chap at work who constantly took the red stapler from the killer.

    • Mood_Indigo

      Time to re-watch the movie “My Son the Fanatic” …..

    • Sean Dennehy

      Radical Muslims can’t have workplace disputes, right? That’s physically impossible?

  • Alina Henry

    This is a form of terrorism, it’s domestic terrorism! Please stop saying it’s not.

    • Another Mike

      Terrorism has a political motivation. What is the motivation here?

      • Alina Henry

        The motivation is to do harm and mass shootings are a form of political statement, intended or unintended. Also, the current definition of terrorism is vague, which is why we need to redefine how we view terrorism and what constitutes terrorism. (:

  • Noelle

    How was it decided to get away from negotiating and to allow the cops to attack the shooters? Militarization of police departments?

  • Another Mike

    One reason why there are more mass shootings in the US is that it is the third most populous country in the world, after China and India. The US has four times the population of the next largest industrialized Western country that permits civilian gun ownership, Germany.

    • Sean

      Do you know what “Per Capita” means?

      • Another Mike

        All I heard were raw numbers. So many mass shootings this year. More than any other country. Etc.

    • Cal M

      Mike, this is a joke. Per capita is the metric that matters. Your post here falls into the “lies, damn lies, & statistics” that Mark Twain warned about.

      • Curious

        The U.S. doesn’t rank No. 1. At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000).

  • Sean Dennehy

    Once again, we have people and the media calling this terrorism or speculating that this might be terrorism just because the perp is a Muslim. Yet the media won’t call the Planned Parenthood shooter (who was a radical anti-abortion activist) or Dylan Roof (a white supremacist) terrorists. Being white and non-Muslim grants you immunity from being called a terrorist in the media. What is wrong with the media?

    • Bill_Woods

      No, it’s because there were multiple shooters, who’d clearly done a lot of planning.

      • ldemelis

        The Planned Parenthood shooter clearly had done a lot of planning too. As do most of these guys. And Columbine involved “multiple shooters,” too (i.e., two).

      • Sean Dennehy

        How does multiple shooters make it terrorism? One person alone can do terrorism.

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      Multiple shooters changes the equation from lone killer to a terrorist act. The Boston killings involved bombs which was an act of terrorism. Although I consider the Colorado Spring killings to be an act of domestic terrorism.

      • Sean Dennehy

        One person can’t do a terrorist attack alone? What about Timothy McVeigh?

        • Bill_Woods

          Obviously Beth thinks one person can, since she mentioned Colorado Springs. But when there are multiple actors, you can pretty well discard the ‘disgruntled worker went postal’ theory.

        • Noelle

          He did get a lot of help from Terry Nichols, who is in prison for life for his role.

        • Beth Grant DeRoos

          Lets not forget the role media and Facebook groups play in helping encourage mass violence. The Paris killers used Facebook to plan their attack. The Boston bombers were said to use media groups to discuss their plans.

          And the concern I have as demonstrated in the Paris, Boston and San Bernardino cases is bombs. Is law enforcement or the public prepared for the coming mass killings done by people wearing bomb vests?

      • Chris OConnell

        I don’t know where this “one person” rule came from. There was the Ft. Hood shooter. There was the Times Sq. bomber. There was the guy who shot up the Canadian Parliament. There is the big discussion of “lone wolf” attacks. These and many others are readily and universally claimed to be terrorist attacks and nobody invokes this alleged “one person” rule.

        • Bill_Woods

          Nobody is saying that one person must be, or even probably is, a deranged nut rather than a terrorist. We all realize there have been ‘lone wolves’. The point is that a conspiracy of multiple deranged nuts is very unlikely, so you naturally look toward other possibilities.

    • Curious

      This is Islamic terrorism. Plain and simple.

  • Bill_Woods

    As usual, the overlap between measures that would have been effective in preventing the recent incident and the “common sense” measures proposed would appear to be the empty set.

    • ldemelis

      Fewer people would likely have been killed if the shooters had been restricted to handguns.

      • Bill_Woods

        I don’t think anyone has had the chutzpah to claim a ban on long guns would be a modest, “common sense” gun-control measure.

        • ldemelis

          Australia banned semi-automatic weapons after a horrific shooting there 20 years ago.

          • Bill_Woods

            Again, I don’t think anyone has had the chutzpah to claim such a ban would be a modest, “common sense” gun-control measure.

      • Fed-Up

        A handgun is less deadly than a rifle, is that what you’re saying?

        • ldemelis

          The shooters had two handguns and two AR-15s. They would likely not have been able to kill so many people had they only had handguns.

          • Fed-Up

            I don’t think that makes sense. What if they had 4 handguns? The point is that how the guns can kill is not the issue, but rather the motivation of the shooter to kill as many people as possible.

          • ldemelis

            It takes more time if they have to stop and re-load. In many of these situations, the shooters are stopped while re-loading.

          • Fed-Up

            How is that any different than a rifle? Both have to be reloaded and both carry magazines of equal capacity.

          • ldemelis

            You are right, my initial statement was imprecise. What I should have said was these shooters would likely have killed fewer people if they didn’t have a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15.

          • Fed-Up

            I still don’t think that’s true since handguns are semi-automatic weapons too. Calibers are not an issue because most calibers can be for either a pistol or rifle. This is the problem with a blanket statement asking for gun control, you can label one gun, but any gun can kill.

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            San Bernardino police said investigators found 12 pipe bomb in the shooting suspects’ home. That was besides the ones they found at the location where all those people were shot.

          • ldemelis

            They didn’t have them at the site of the shooting though. If I recall correctly, the Aurora theater shooter had a whole arsenal in his apartment — he even booby-trapped it.

  • Livegreen

    The NRA argument “over my dead body” should be corrected to being “over other peoples & childrens’ dead bodies” as that is what is actually happening. The coldeness and heartlessness of gun liberterians is appalling.

  • William – SF

    Australia conservatives and liberals enacted legislation to curb mass killings, and it has been successful.

    An example of American exceptionalism?

    • Noelle

      2nd Amendment.

      • ldemelis

        Misinterpreted.

        • Noelle

          yes!

        • Beth Grant DeRoos

          Not according to the U S Supreme Court a couple years ago.

        • Bill_Woods

          Not really. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of gun nuts.
          https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment

          • ldemelis

            Have you ever seen an 18th C musket? They were hard to load, hard to shoot, and weren’t that accurate. If you had a truly “originalist” view of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t apply to modern weapons that allow you to shoot multiple times without reloading.

          • Fed-Up

            By that logic the right to free speech wouldn’t apply to radio, television or internet. The right to illegal search doesn’t apply to phones since they weren’t imagined in the 18C.

          • Bill_Woods

            Interesting. Would you apply an equally constricted interpretation to the 1st Amendment? Because that would pretty much wipe out freedom of the press….

          • ldemelis

            I think each amendment has to be looked at individually. The freedom of religion, in Thomas Jefferson’s original conception, pretty clearly applied to Hindus and Muslims, even though there were no such groups in the US at the time. Similarly, the Internet isn’t that different from the small printing presses that people used in the 18th C. And the prohibition on unreasonable searches applies to the searches, not the method.

          • Fed-Up

            Exactly! Which is why “arms” are not defined in the second amendment. If they meant muskets or intended to have so much detail, why is it one of the shortest amendments?

          • ldemelis

            If you want to understand what the founders meant by “arms,” you have to study what “arms” they actually had to understand what they actually meant. Few of the so-called “originalists” actually do that, however — they impose modern definitions on 18th C words.

          • Fed-Up

            Doesn’t an AR15 fall into the category of “small arms”?

          • Bill_Woods

            Those were state-of-the-art military weapons, including crew-served weapons like cannons.

          • ldemelis

            Do you think the Founders intended individuals to own cannons?

          • Bill_Woods

            Clearly they did. Cannon were standard equipment on ships of the day.

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            According to our family diaries from the 1700-1800 period communities owned cannons. Individuals owned firearms and some communities required every able bodied adult to own and know how to use a firearm.

            We still own a Kentucky Rifle made it a more accurate musket past fifty yards when compared to the British Brown Bess as well as various flintlock pistols of which an owner had several.

            One being reloaded by ‘side arm’ which was a person child/adult who would reload as fast as possible so the shooter wouldn’t have any waiting time between shots.

            Colt came out with the revolver in around 1836 the year James Madison died and precussion caps came out earlier in the 19th century

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            James H. Hutson is chief of the Manuscript Division and the author of many books, including, most recently, “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” 1998 wrote that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Muslims in the United States in 1770’s imported as slaves from areas of Africa where Islam flourished.

            In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature “rejected by a great majority” an effort to limit the bill’s scope “in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan.” George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to “obtain proper relief” from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome “Mohometans” to Mount Vernon if they were “good workmen” (see page 96).

          • Another Mike

            Did those small printing presses enable people to read their messages instantly, around the globe?

          • LF

            Have you noticed that no one dies from Freedom of Expression?

          • Bill_Woods

            Oh? Then why the bar on “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”?

          • Another Mike

            Yes, the musket was the assault rifle of its day. Its inaccuracy made it useless for hunting, but ideal for the close-range fighting of the day. (Remember: “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes”.) And you could load and fire it at the rate of three rounds a minute.

      • Tony Rocco

        The clause in the second amendment supposedly guaranteeing the right to keep and bare arms should be repealed. Most civilized western countries prohibit or severely restrict their citizens from owning and carrying guns. We need the same limitations here.

    • Another Mike

      Australia went from 14 mass shootings (mostly family murder suicides) before the long gun ban to three afterwards.

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      All Swiss citizens are required to own and know how to use a firearm. So why don’t they have gun violence and deaths?

      • ldemelis

        They have training requirements, and they have to account for every bullet. Israel, which also has a lot of individual gun ownership (every reservist keeps a weapon at home) imposes liability on the gun owner for any crime committed with the gun, even if it’s not the owner. So if a kid gets hold of daddy’s gun and shoots a neighbor, daddy goes to jail.

      • Another Mike

        Among other things, Switzerland prohibits gun ownership to immigrants from certain countries. But we could not prohibit gun ownership to natives of say, Guatemala or Honduras.

      • William – SF

        Haven’t researched why, but US is more like Australia (or England) than Switzerland – social safety nets are more similar … I’m not seeing the wealthy behind mass shootings …
        I’d rather live in a world with many fewer guns, and a better social safety net for under(un)employed and mentally ill, and gun ban on those on terrorist list, and … sigh

  • Sean

    So now that we find out these people were Muslim we’re calling it terrorism? Terrorism is bringing terror to the public through a strong ideological agenda. There’s no evidence to speculate terrorism here, and certainly not more than the Planned Parenthood shooting, but the media wouldn’t even dare bring up his religion, much less call it radical Christianity.

  • Lauri Falabella

    My solution to the gun control issue is to outlaw automatic weapons. Why would any civilian need an automatic weapon? Hunters, sport shooters, target shooters … they would not need an automatic weapons. Only military need automatic weapons.

    • Bill_Woods

      You’re in luck, private ownership of automatic weapons has been effectively banned for decades.

    • ldemelis

      I think you mean semi-automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned by federal law for decades (and you will note that few if any of these mass shootings involve fully automatic weapons, which implies that the federal ban has actually worked).

      • Lauri Falabella

        Yes, you are right. I mean semi-automatic weapons. Thanks.

    • Seunghee Shim

      Yes, that should be the minimum restriction. totally agree

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      Automatic weapons are already outlawed.

  • Cal M

    Michael, you should really correct a VERY misleading comment you just read.

    “Another Mike” suggested that gun violence is only a problem b/c the US has a much larger population. Here’s the link from Wikipedia ranking gun deaths PER CAPITA: you will note that the US is NUMBER ONE in PER CAPITA (which is the relevant metric). We are behind only countries such as Honduras, Venezuela, Guatemala, & a handful of others.

    Please do the right thing & correct that extremely misleading comment from Mike.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    • Cal M

      correction: Number One in amongst 1st world countries ->my mistake.

    • Another Mike

      The subject is mass shootings.

  • Livegreen

    The argument that criminals shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons is disgingenuous. Many mass shooters were not criminals when they legally bought their guns before they committed their attrocities. Arresting someone after, as the NRA prefers, means they don’t care about preventing mass killings before they occur.

    • Another Mike

      Pretty sure Minority Report was science-fiction, but great movie though.

  • Livegreen

    Arming all non-criminals is not an answer because we have no way to know who will be the next criminal or mass killer. The solution the NRA wants is to take us back to the Wild West and Tombstone Arizona. The only way to solve the problem is common sense legislation as Chief Beary inferred, incluing waiting, training and mental health check before a purchase.

    • ldemelis

      Actually, there were more restrictions on guns in Tombstone Arizona than the NRA supports today. You couldn’t bring guns into bars, for examples. Or churches.

      • Livegreen

        Yes, Marshal Earp enacted this as a solution for the # of killings that gave Tombstone it’s name.

  • trite

    Is there data showing which members of Congress benefit financially from the NRA? If not, perhaps there should be that investigation.

    • Bill_Woods

      The NRA isn’t bashful about saying which candidates it supports.
      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html?_r=0

    • Another Mike

      Many such compilations exist, such as opensecrets.org. I have observed if a Congressman votes the NRA’s way, they will reward him with a $5000 campaign contribution.

      • trite

        Perhaps the NY Times should show an ongoing list of such Congressmen on a day to day basis.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    The NRA member who called in obviously doesn’t know that there are NRA members who refuse to have firearms in their homes due to family members who suffer from depression. I know this as a fact.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    If you are a Swiss citizens you are required to own and know how to use a firearm.

    • Bill_Woods

      And required to keep their assault rifles in their homes!

  • Noelle

    The shooters were of Pakistani background

  • Sam Badger

    Gun ownership isn’t the only problem. It’s also a product of a brutal colonial settler culture that valorizes individual acts of violence and gun use to establish whatever one believes to be just

  • Alyce Finwall

    I am STRONGLY against guns, but sadly, I don’t foresee gun ownership being limited or banned anytime soon as we have politicians who seem to be under the NRA’s thumb. I’m wondering if instead of focusing on guns, can we strictly limit access to ammunition?

    • Curious

      That darn Constitution!

  • Another Mike

    If the rifles used were indeed obtained from a former roommate, they were NOT legally obtained by the killers, unless the transfer went through a licensed California dealer, with a background check and a ten-day waiting period.

  • Seunghee Shim

    I just want to know how many more innocent people should die before there is some meaningful action on gun control. Think about the number of lives you can save with gun control, please.

    • Fed-Up

      In the mean time we should also make murder illegal. Think of how many people would be saved if we made murder illegal!

  • TC

    Forensic psychiatrist
    Park Dietz, who studied mass killing (and serial killing) extensively has
    repeatedly recommended that the media alter the way these events are covered.
    The excited breaking news coverage
    with blaring sirens, body counts and breathless speculations about the shooter’s
    identity and motivation enflame the fantasies of the next shooter.

    (http://www.parkdietzassociates.com/)

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      TC you make an excellent point. 24 hr coverage of these killings only serves to desensitize people so they either feel helpless or they become even angrier and more violent. 24 hr media has become 100% ratings motivated.

  • Chris OConnell

    Re; Radicalization. The US has become quite radicalized in its War on Terror. I think of Jonathan Schell’s “Invitation to a Degraded World,” written after Septermber 11th. We accepted the invitation.

    Our drone wars reflect radicalization, killing scores and hundreds of Muslims, mostly unnamed and unidentified, but fitting the shadowy, drone-filmed profile of a militant. It is waged in Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. There is Guantanomo (i.e. indefinite detention without charge), there was the extensive torture. It is enough to radicalize a Muslim!

  • Another Mike

    Psychopaths are mentally ill people who consider other people’s lives to be worth nothing.

  • Laura F

    I usually don’t watch much commercial television, but had the opportunity to watch a football game last weekend. I was stunned by the constant stream of commercials for extremely violent video games. Is this the new normal for commercial television? I couldn’t help but wonder who was the target audience for these commercials. Should we not take some responsibility as a society for the disheartening messages that violence is an appropriate and seemingly acceptable response.

    • Tony Rocco

      Yes, I noticed this last week. I was dumbstruck at the ads for violent games. Really shocking. What is the fascination with these games? What kind of culture are we producing when we promote these games on television? The country freaks out when it sees one of Janet Jackson’s breasts but doesn’t flinch at the incredible violence depicted in these sick games.

      • Alina Henry

        I understand the point you are making and I am against video games, but research shows that violent games and violence are not correlated. Consequently, neighborhood and class are better predictors of violence.

        • Beth Grant DeRoos

          Actually this past year or two there have been a number of studies and news stories on women who assume male names when playing online video games because of threats women get if they play as a woman and do well in the games. Good grief one need only follow what has been happening in Gamergate.

          ‘The movement is not new. Two years ago, when Anita Sarkeesian tried to crowdfund a series of videos critiquing the hypersexualized female characters of video games, they threatened to kill and rape her. The movement reached fever pitch – and got its name — when a jilted former lover of indie game developer Zoe Quinn published transcripts of her life online. Gamers who were outraged over charges that Quinn’s game Depression Quest had received favorable reviews due to an alleged romantic relationship with a journalist, seized the opportunity to shame and terrify her into hiding. Now, Gamergate is a wildfire that threatens to consume the entire games industry.’
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/20/rape-and-death-threats-are-terrorizing-female-gamers-why-havent-men-in-tech-spoken-out/

  • pm05

    A caller just stated that there is a use for semi-automatic weapons – to shoot deer!!! THIS is how nuts we are in this country. We have to “blow away” deer for sport!!! Geez are we such a sick sick sick country!

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      Have you ever used a semi-automatic weapon? Not an automatic weapon but a semi.

      • Another Mike

        Semi-automatic shotguns are very common for bird hunters and sporting clays shooters. And virtually all handguns are semi-automatic in action. Except for single-action revolvers, each trigger pull readies the next round to be fired.

    • Fed-Up

      I take it you have not fired a semi automatic gun or hunted a deer before. Not all semi automatics are AR15’s or the “evil” guns that are being sensationalized in the news. You need to inform yourself of what guns really are and what they are capable of before you start spreading mis information.

    • jared

      You may be confusing semiautomatic and automatic. Automatic guns are like machine guns -blow them away. Semiautomatic guns fire each time you aim and pull the trigger without requiring working a bolt or lever action. This allows a rapid second shot at a wounded deer, before it can run away and die a lingering death.

  • Curious

    Spin, spin, spin. This no “hybrid” anything. This is Islamic terrorism, plain and simple.

  • Ryan

    Limiting the number of bullets or keeping the price high does not interfere with our 2nd amendment rights and could be a possible solution to this pervasive problem.

    Currently California is on track to switch over all hunting zones to require copper bullets which are much more expensive than lead.

    If this carries over to all shooting activities including target shooting at gun ranges I believe that we will see a large reduction in fatalities related to these events as well as limit the amount of lead that is introduced into the environment. FYI Chabot gun range is likely being closed down due to lead contamination.

    Most citizens are not aware of this hunting legislation set to got into effect by 2017. Copper bullets allow citizens to continue to hunt without contaminating our environment with lead and could also help minimize mass casualty active shooter incidents.

    • Bill_Woods

      I suspect someone inclined to be a mass shooter wouldn’t be deterred by a big bill for a couple of boxes of ammo. It’s not like they’re going to have to pay their rent the next month.

      • Ryan

        “Limiting the number of bullets…” is the first line in my post.

  • gemel

    Current report:

    ” Syed Rizwan Farook — one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre
    — was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being
    investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement
    officials said Thursday.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

    And there are reports of pipe bombs and IEDs.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html

    Why all the focus on NRA and so little on Islamic terrorism?

    • Tony Rocco

      Because except for the uncertain possibility that this was an act of Islamic terrorism, the vast majority of shooters have been US citizens able to easily get their hands on guns which they then use to kill innocent people.

      • gemel

        Except that current reports indicate that it is not an uncertainty that this was an act of Islamic terrorism – though only question is what other factors there are.

  • anoba

    No less than the International Association of Chiefs of Police thinks that gun ownership should be more regulated. THESE are the people who have to put their lives on the line when nuts get guns and commit mass shootings. Maybe when one of you people who are so loud to defend gun rights actually takes a job that requires you to go out there and clean up the mess made by loose gun control, then you can blather on about the right to bear arms. Until then, maybe you all should listen to the professionals.

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      You assume some of us who support firearm use have not or do not work in some law enforcement agency, healthcare etc.

      As for the International Association of Chiefs of Police is a union. Personally I prefer the National Association of Sheriffs since Sheriffs are elected, not appointed, which makes them more in line with the U S Constitution.

    • Another Mike

      The members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police are chiefs or assistant chiefs. They are executives, administrators. They are not generally the ones who put their lives on the line. What they tend to be are skillful politicians.

      • anoba

        Police chiefs have to spend years on the beat before they become chief don’t they? The particular police chief who was on Forum and speaking about the association’s stance on gun control was awarded the police Medal of Valor twice. Doesn’t sound like a mere politician to me. Can you say you’ve put your life on the line in service of your fellow citizen in this same way as this police chief?

        • Beth Grant DeRoos

          Most chiefs of police have been appointed to the position by their local government, typically the mayor’s office. Unlike other police careers within the department, the chief operates within a political environment.

        • Another Mike

          Police One magazine surveyed 15000 law enforcement personnel of all ranks in 2013. The results:

          “More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

          “A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or
          avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).”

          http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

          • anoba

            But the police chief wasn’t calling to abolish concealed carry. This survey lines up with the position of the IACOP. They want greater background checks and education so that responsible gun owners can have them and crazy people can’t.

            “by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.”

            That’s what gun regulation means: making sure only responsible and sane people can get guns, not taking away everyone’s guns (unless you have a record and you’re crazy).

            It also means regulating the kinds of guns and ammo people can get so that war-level weapons aren’t being held in people’s homes.

          • Another Mike

            Your original point was that the IACOP was calling for more gun regulation while the Police One poll of all levels of law enforcement determined the majority thought current regulation was sufficient.

          • anoba

            Did they ask that specific question of the cops in the survey? “Do you think current regulation is sufficient?” Because it’s one thing to ask if you support responsible people carrying guns, and it brings up quite another set of considerations to specifically ask, “Do you think the laws and procedures we have in place now are sufficient to ensure that guns are only in the right hands?”

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            A lot depends on the area the law enforcement men/women work in and live in.

            As a general rule in an area like Simi Valley CA, Tracy CA where a large number of law enforcement live they have no issues with current laws.

            But in the inner city, high crime cities you find that more law enforcement folks would like to see stricter laws. These are also the areas with the highest firearm crimes.

            Rural areas where you have Sheriff’s they have no problem with the existing laws, and note that the firearm owners who are also hunters are good responsible people. Rural areas tend to be more conservative as well.

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            And how do we know if someone is responsible? Remember a criminal mind often knows how to fool people, including law enforcement. Heck they even know how to fool a polygraph.

            Everything I have read says the Charleston African American church shooter, the Oregon shooter, the San Bernardino shooters had no felonies or known treatment for mental issues.

            Heck in the San Bernardino shooting, the husband and wife were said to be nice people living the American dream with a six month old baby. No red flags at work, not calls to the home for domestic issues etc.

  • Ray Kool

    Are you people out of your mind? or just never learn about logic?

    I does not own any guns, but I am planning to get some!

    These hard core fake liberals are just supporting any ridiculous rights, except owning guns. Yes I agree on tougher laws to prevent criminals and psychos to get guns, but it can not be totally prevented. Bearing fire arms is what unique about being an American citizen. Guns do not kill! People do! there are thousands of ways to kill, if you seize guns, what about plow into a parade with a Uhaul truck will a ton of gasoline in its box? what about poison the food and water? what about seize a school with fake bombs and start beheading? can you prevent that?

    Have you been to Home Depot? all these tools can be used to kill!
    Being an American, means not only those rights to vote, but also wide accesses to wealth and wide range of resources and materials, We invented airplane and automobile by some individuals , even if you seized all the guns, if you want, you can come to this country with no money, starting from selling hotdogs, and make money to get all the machines and materials need to make guns, even canons and rockets the next year, and do great harm to the people to prove their agenda. what can you do about it?

    Every right came with a price, a sacrifice. some nuts and criminals will kill, even under toughest control. Chinese need to be registered to buy big kitchen knives, and they execute more than 2/3 of the total death sentences on this planet each year!, do you want to be like that?

    It is a price we pay for owning guns! `I am sorry to say, but how many will die? 5000?
    more than 20000 died each year for our right of driving an automobile!

    foreign and domestic terror attacks are like mosquito bites, won’t really hurt us, unless you are scared! it only strength our immune system, ,like vaccines.

    when real enemies, I mean the russians and chinese come, when they knock off our satellites through cyber attack, and then nuke us with their soviet era arsenals?
    what would you use to fight? golf clubs?

    Owning a gun is also make it possible, whenever there is someone trying to shift this country to dictatorship, like china, you can express your disagree!

    last time, right after the Paris attack, they ask the encryption for online messages from the tech firms the next day, in order to “spot” the terrorists! really?

    terrorism will never really be prevented, if there are conflicts in economy, race and culture, especially when stupid religions get involved.

    so, be vigilant, be tough, don’t be like bunch of wussies! laugh at the terror attacks, not cry. wipe off the blood, put on a bandad and continue celebrate your holidays!

  • Ga.i.am

    All I hear from the people interviewed at the mosque that the two assailants attended is that they are sorry for the loss but they are scared for their own safety, which is understandable. Why doesn’t the Muslim community make a public statement that they abhor violence and will help authorities identify potential terrorists? This seems just as important a statement as expressing concerns for their own safety. Correct me if I’m wrong but I haven’t heard any such statements.

    • Beth Grant DeRoos

      I admit I don’t own a tv, but do watch some CNN, PBS, CBS online. Have yet to hear any one in that Muslim community of Redlands etc note they want to help in any way possible, to weed those who want to do harm to others.

      Thing is I know a couple people who were concerned enough about someone they knew who was making violent comments about wanting to harm someone that they contacted local law enforcement so if nothing else there would be a record that people were concerned.

  • Jonnie

    Kransny put down the blunt and repeat after me: “This was an act of Islamic terrorism.”

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor