Here’s the latest according to CNN:
According to the video, Farook and his wife recently traveled to Saudi Arabia, though don’t know if that really means anything or not. I think that’s where they are getting the possible ties to terrorism plot thing though, not because it’s a ‘code for brown shooters’.
Khan? Sounds South Asian to me. But Muslim, if that’s what you mean.
ETA: Oh, Khan is the brother-in-law. But still, I suspect South Asian, not Arab.
What difference would it make? Is my point.
Leave the Second Amendment **alone. ** You touch the Second Amendment, you will see more chaos because people are not going to take it lightly. Mental health funding, maybe. Background checks, maybe. So be it.
I think you will find that is not true, if you look at the numbers.
Politically as well as psychologically I think it makes a difference. Honestly, if one is keen on gun control then it’s better (in the sense Hentor is using above to wish for more ‘mass shootings’) if it’s home grown American crazy assholes doing it for obscure reasons than if it’s home grown Islamic terrorists, recently back from a trip to the Middle East. If this turns out to be a husband and wife nut case that did it because they were made at the people they (or he) worked with, then that’s ‘better’ than if it turns out to be part of a terrorist attack from the perspective of gun control, since those both push different buttons with the public as a whole, rather than people who already have their buttons pushed.
This is a really strange event, even by American ‘mass shooting’ standards, so I think it’s too early to jump to ANY conclusion at this point.
The name I saw and referred to was Sayed Farook. Man, I honestly didn’t know how to refer to that name. News said he was American. I had no idea if his ethnicity was Middle Eastern, African, whatever. Didn’t intend to offend Arabs. But also didn’t want to say Muslim, because I honestly don’t know if folk w/ names that sound like that to me are primarily Muslim. And I didn’t want to equate geography with ethnicity with religion.
If I hear a name like Schwartz, I can say that is a German sounding name. If I hear Chin, I can say Asian. What is the appropriate terminology for referring to a name like Farook or Khan? I’m not trying to be difficult. (And I’m not particularly interested in sermons about the desirability of not labeling people. But sermonize away, if you wish.)
Don’t know if I think it “better or worse” if this is ISIS-type terror related, of just some crazy American who happens to have a non-European sounding name.
Did it matter to you for the Paris attacks?
The only brown shooter recently was in New Orleans, and he shot 17 people, and wasn’t called a terrorist, although I’m sure you missed that since the president didn’t make a tweet about it.
It is early, but not apparently enough to script the narrative that suits a persons ideology.
If this couple went to Saudi Arabia and there was convinced to declare a personal war on the United States, went back and bought weapons at Walmart to carry out the attack. What difference does it make in any degree that an American can do something about?
What? It’s all terrorism. So even asking the question is stupid.
I noticed that the next videos from this guy included “OBAMA’S BLACK SKIN PRIVILEGE” and “THE CRIMINAL AREOGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON.”
So, did not watch. I suspect this guy presents ill-informed ranting that flies in the face of peer reviewed research. Am I right?
People started scripting a narrative about this (in this thread) long before ANY details came out…and, as always, they were totally driven by the persons ideology and world view. If you think that’s what I’m doing you are missing the point.
The perceived motivations make a difference on how this will play with the public, and thus how it will be played by the politicians.
If this turns out not to be Terrorism. What will it be called and by whom?
Not gonna watch a youtube video, and I don’t even know which of my statements you are claiming is “not true”. Got an argument, make it.
It will be called a ‘mass shooting’ of course but the press and by most everyone else. If it’s clear cut that this was some sort of work rage or some other crazy crap not related to terrorism then it will be just like all the other, myriad ‘mass shootings’ that have happened in the past several decades. And it will be a further erosion of the American public’s view on personal gun ownership, IMHO…every such incident erodes the public’s confidence that having the right is ‘worth it’. If it’s a terrorist attack, however, then it won’t have the same effect, regardless of whether the terrorists were home grown (they seem to have been American citizens so that’s a given) or whether they got their guns at Walmart or whatever, since it will push a whole different set of buttons with the public and won’t be categorized in peoples minds as similar to Sandy Hook or the recent nut case in Colorado.
Assuming this plays out as it seems now, it will be hard to call this terrorism (legally) unless there is some video they made saying “Kill all the infidels”. You have to prove motive for a terrorism charge, and with the folks dead and one being a coworker of those killed, you have the possibility of work place violence. I suspect a terrorism change won’t be brought against them unless it’s a strong case. And we still have one suspect on the loose, so there might be more evidence available.
Gavin the Becker, at the end of his book “the Gift of Fear”, pleads for some degree of consumer safety features on guns. Like an inbuilt lock that can only be opened by a code by the owner. That renders a stolen or lost gun useless. or guns that can only be used in combination with a wrist band worn by the owner.
Most gun owners would oppose that, with: “I don’t want to be fiddling with the lock while the Bad Guy attacks”. To which the reply could be: "Do you really want to be firing a deadly weapon when you are not calm, and composed and practiced enough to handle the lock first? Do you want to be able to fire a gun a second after havng woken up with a start? If yes, would you also be willing to find your hands on a steering wheel driving a car going 50 MPG on a highway at night, one second after having woken up with a start? No, because it wouldn’t be safe? Why would it be safer to fire a gun in that same state of mind?
I watched a little. It’s a guy using Wikipedia to show that despite leading in gun ownership the U.S. does not lead in per capita murders. “Left wing socialist utopias”, like I suppose Jamaica, El Salvadore and Cameroon supposedly are, all top the US in per capita murders. Also the U.S. murder rates are “artificially” propped up by Democrat-run gun-grabbing cities like Detroit.
It was painful to watch. You’re welcome.
More guns in the hands of the wrong people will = more killings. More guns in the hands of the right people will = either less killings or the same level.
Your argument that more more guns = more killing. While the US is by far and away the most gun happy country in the world with 90 guns per 100 people, our murder rate per 100,000 population is not even in the top half of all countries. We are according to the video 111 out of 218.
Another interesting note is Detroit which has very strict gun control has a murder rate that if it were a separate country make it #2 on the list of most murders with a gun per 100,000 population.
Plano Texas on the other hand with very lax gun control (open carry legal as of 1/1/16) has a murder rate of .4/ 100,000 making it one of the safest places in the world.