Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

[Mr. Perfect]

This is going to be a tough one for liberals. How do you call for gun control when you already have it.

Apparently there's a new fangled contraption called an automobile.

People buy guns in no-check states and take them for a drive.

So, yer saying, guns don't kill people, but people with automobiles AND guns kill people?

Or people with guns and public transit, people with guns and bicyles, people with guns and feet, people with guns and a courier service . . .

Guns used in California shooting bought legally, strong enough to pierce protective vests

Why didn't you read the article first.

[Mr. Perfect]

Actually the real Achilles heel is not understanding statistics: such as misattribution of causation to correlation in observational studies with many confounding factors

Yes. Some continually assert or insinuate guns cause crime based on no evidence.

[Mr. Perfect]

Some reports claim that these killers were wearing body amour.

A civilian purchasing body armour does not raise a red flag?

Why would it.

[Typhoon]

Some reports claim that these killers were wearing body amour.

A civilian purchasing body armour does not raise a red flag?

Why would it.

Why would a civilian require body armour?

[Simple Minded]

Some reports claim that these killers were wearing body amour.

A civilian purchasing body armour does not raise a red flag?

Why would it.

Why would a civilian require body armour?

typhoon,

this is America.

Paraphrasing William Munny: "Requires got nothing to do with it!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg

No one requires a 4000 sq. ft. house, a $60,000 automobile, or a bottle of wine that costs more than $10 either.

[Typhoon]

Actually the real Achilles heel is not understanding statistics: such as misattribution of causation to correlation in observational studies with many confounding factors

Yes. Some continually assert or insinuate guns cause crime based on no evidence.

Actually, a check to confirm the applicant does not have a history of violence due to mental health or a criminal record is not unreasonable.

My issue is not with responsible gun ownership, rather the belief in a nation with already more guns than people that more guns are a solution. A misdiagnosis of the symptom(s) and complete lack of interest in cause(s).

[Typhoon]

Some reports claim that these killers were wearing body amour.

A civilian purchasing body armour does not raise a red flag?

Why would it.

Why would a civilian require body armour?

typhoon,

this is America.

Paraphrasing William Munny: "Requires got nothing to do with it!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg

No one requires a 4000 sq. ft. house, a $60,000 automobile, or a bottle of wine that costs more than $10 either.

Why can't Americans own portable tactical nuclear weapons.

It seems downright un-American.

[Doc]

[Doc]

Obama says he can screen out terrorists among Syrian refugees But he can't stop terrorists on fiance visas from coming to the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/san-bern ... d=35581807

About the San Bernardino Shooter's 'Fiance' Visa That Allowed Her in US

By MARIAM KHAN

Dec 4, 2015, 1:46 PM ET

PHOTO: A police officer picks up a weapon from the scene of the investigation around the area of the SUV vehicle where two suspects were shot by police following a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. Dec. 3, 2015.Mike Blake/Reuters
A police officer picks up a weapon from the scene of the investigation around the area of the SUV vehicle where two suspects were shot by police following a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. Dec. 3, 2015.

Tashfeen Malik came to the United States in July 2014 on a K-1 visa, known casually as a “fiance visa,” and, now, a little more than a year later, she is dead after allegedly helping her husband slaughter 14 people in San Bernardino, California, this week.

Little is known about Malik, 29. A Muslim-born Pakistani native, Malik entered the country legally by using one of a handful of visas that require background checks and security screenings.

In order to get a seal of approval from the U.S. government on their relationship, Malik and her then-boyfriend, Syed Rizwan Farooq, a U.S. citizen, had to prove they were in love and planning to marry within 90 days. They met the standard, and passed the screening process.

But doing so has now raised questions about immigration procedures.

How San Bernardino Shooters Hid in Plain Sight

Shooting Victims Described as 'Protector,' 'Incredible Father,' 'Very Good Man'

What Is a 'Fiance' Visa?

The visa is for U.S. citizens who plan to marry non-U.S. citizens. After the visa is issued, the marriage ceremony must take place on U.S. soil within 90 days, otherwise the non-citizen will be deported back to their home country, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The application process requires an I-129 form, which asks lots of basic information and also requires the couple to provide identifying documents, including birth certificates and proof of U.S. citizenship. The couple also has to divulge information on previous run-ins with the law, and prior convictions. The Citizenship and Immigration Services then reviews both domestic and international criminal databases to gather information, while also relying on other federal agencies to back them up.

Federal officials maintain they have a very effective, rigorous screening process in place for people from countries with links to jihadist movement.

The entire review process can take anywhere from five to eight months, after which the files get handed over to the U.S. State Department for another thorough look at the couple’s personal histories.

Once the couple clears this hurdle, the fiance-in-question is called in for an in-person interview with U.S. embassy staff in their residing country. Questions like “How did you two meet?” are asked, though this process varies from country to country.

Finally, if they’ve made it through these steps, the visa is granted. Travel tickets are purchased. The couple gets married.

Malik and Farooq married the month after her arrival and she eventually became a lawful permanent resident.

The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to a request for comment.

Who Is Concerned About Visa Program?

“In our struggle against terrorism, we are dealing with an enemy that has shown it is not only capable of bypassing U.S. screening, but of recruiting and radicalizing Muslim migrants after their entry to the United States,” Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a letter Thursday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Their letter requests information not only of the two perpetrators, but also their parents’ immigration histories. It also echoes the lawmakers’ August request for the immigration records of 12 terror suspects.

The Obama Administration has not yet released these records.

The letter comes just days before Congress looks to pass a broad spending agreement that will fund, among other things, immigration programs and national security.

[Mr. Perfect]

Actually, a check to confirm the applicant does not have a history of violence due to mental health or a criminal record is not unreasonable.

My issue is not with responsible gun ownership,

Your "issue" is that you know very little of our laws or gun statistics but continue to express strong opinions anyway.

rather the belief in a nation with already more guns than people that more guns are a solution.

To shortcut, this appears to be a strawman argument.

A misdiagnosis of the symptom(s) and complete lack of interest in cause(s).

I agree. The Democrats have no interest in learning the symptoms or the cause of murder in America, because when we do look at the causes of murder in America very quickly we learn guns are not the root cause, or more accurately gun control is not a solution.

The bulk of murders committed in America, possibly a majority, is young males between 14-24 who live in Democrat cities/counties/states that already have European style gun control. Democrats can't touch that with a 10 ft pole and conservatives have known this for decades. Democrats are content to let their constituents murder each other with abandon into perpetuity while doing nothing. And we all know it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Why can't Americans own portable tactical nuclear weapons.

It seems downright un-American.

Because they cost too much.

For the lo info though, natural rights don't extend to many types of explosives because they are inherently unstable.

[manolo]

Why can't Americans own portable tactical nuclear weapons.

It seems downright un-American.

Because they cost too much.

Mr P,

True, but technology tends to bring down costs over time.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Until that glorious day then I guess we'll have to keep our gun stockpiles.

[Mr. Perfect]

Gun violence declining everywhere except liberal gun free zones.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... ree-zones/

On December 3, The Washington Post reported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones; WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.

According to WaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”

Breitbart News previously pointed to this decline and explained it correlated with a massive increase in privately owned firearms over the same period of time. For example, Congressional Research Service showed that the number of privately owned firearms increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. And record background checks under Obama make it easy to see how tens of millions more privately owned guns have found their way into Americans’ hands since 2009.

So gun ownership increased for 20 years, but “gun homicides” decreased–except in gun free zones.

WaPo points to a study by Mother Jones that claims that high-profile shootings began increasing in gun-free zones in late 2011/early 2012. The examples Mother Jones provides are the Aurora movie theater, Sandy Hook Elementary, and the D.C. Navy Yard, all of which were gun-free zones.

Other examples of shootings in gun-free zones that could have been cited are Arapahoe High School (December 2013), Fort Hood (April 2014), Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (June 2015), Chattanooga military offices (July 2015), the Lafayette Grand Theatre (July 2015), and Umpqua Community College (October 1).

Increases in gun ownership correlated with drastic reductions in firearm-related homicides, but creating zones where law-abiding citizens are denied the ability to be armed for self-defense have allowed high-profile attackers to find easy targets.

[Typhoon]

zEnWw_lH4tQ

[Mr. Perfect]

FBI now classifying attacks as terrorist.

[Mr. Perfect]

California already has European gun control obama wants.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /76748608/

California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

The fact remains that California has already adopted President Obama’s gun control wish list: "universal" background checks, registration, waiting periods, gun bans, magazine bans and an expansion of prohibited gun categories. But those laws did nothing to prevent this horrific crime from taking place.

Nothing.

Gun control didn't work in Paris/California.

[Simple Minded]

Some reports claim that these killers were wearing body amour.

A civilian purchasing body armour does not raise a red flag?

Why would it.

Why would a civilian require body armour?

typhoon,

this is America.

Paraphrasing William Munny: "Requires got nothing to do with it!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg

No one requires a 4000 sq. ft. house, a $60,000 automobile, or a bottle of wine that costs more than $10 either.

Why can't Americans own portable tactical nuclear weapons.

I thought some Americans do have access to tactical nukes..... But hopefully not the witless f*ckwits!

It seems downright un-American.

Probably more of a Marxist problem, than a freedom problem, not the existence of nukes, but the unequal distribution of nukes!

[manolo]

I thought some Americans do have access to tactical nukes..... But hopefully not the witless f*ckwits!

SM,

Paul Ryan has a view on who should have weapons access.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gun ... 8edb31b652

There is some sense in this. If persons are on the terror watch list, with legal access to an arsenal of weaponry, then a subsequent massacre will prove that it was correct to have them on the terror watch list.

I think the philosophical term is 'reductio ad absurdum'.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

I thought some Americans do have access to tactical nukes..... But hopefully not the witless f*ckwits!

SM,

Paul Ryan has a view on who should have weapons access.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gun ... 8edb31b652

There is some sense in this. If persons are on the terror watch list, with legal access to an arsenal of weaponry, then a subsequent massacre will prove that it was correct to have them on the terror watch list.

I think the philosophical term is 'reductio ad absurdum'.

Alex.

Not surprisingly, this is the same mentality of those who interned the Japanese Americans during WWII, and didn't want blacks to own guns post Civil War.

Prevention of potential future crime is always an admirable goal....... until the implementation of striping away the rights (there's that nasty concept of Rule of Law, rather than Rule of Men again) of the individual becomes problematic, expense, and leads many to view you as a demagogue.

In the modern era, where much damage can be done via computer and social media, it makes sense to prevent those on the terror watch list from accessing the internet and phone service.

Who needs a gun to spread terror, when you can tweet about an invisible monster outside your house who is heading towards........

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


‘Police integrity lost’ :
Number of cops charged with murder/manslaughter triples in 2015


Reason for this is, now public aware and does video record when they witness police action .. those video clips leads to charges against police .. B4, system accepted Police version of things, now, videos show in many case things different.


Laquan McDonald police reports differ dramatically from video


Rahm Emanuel op-ed :
I own the problem of police brutality, and I'll fix it

We cannot afford to have any resident of our city living in fear of the police and distrusting their words and actions. And we cannot allow the crimes of a small number of officers to taint the good work of the vast majority who put their lives on the line every day.

What happened last October 2014 on South Pulaski Road should never have happened. Systems should have been in place to prevent it. Supervision and leadership at every level of the police department and the oversight agencies should have come into play.

They didn’t, and that has to change.

.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Have we done the long rifle vs handgun thing yet?

Back in the 80s is was all about banning guns -- today's assault rife obsession seems stupid -- few crime committed with them; and in terms of terrorism -- how will gun control ever stop that?

[manolo]

......... in terms of terrorism -- how will gun control ever stop that?

Folks,

The Beeb news have just reported a terror attack in London. A guy stabbed someone with a knife, shouting "This is for Syria!" The police took him down with a stun gun.

Fortunately the attacker did not have an assault weapon, or any kind of firearm, so the incident (sad as it is) was quickly contained.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

How did they get assault weapons in Paris.

[noddy]

why do they allow machete's in london ? there is no rainforest or scrubland to clear a path through.

with modern supermarkets selling all meats and vegetables pre cut in handy portions their is no need for poms to have access to anything more than a bread knife.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... four-years

26,370 offences, its a pyscho, its time to take a stand against the juveinle fixation on medieval weaponary.