Shooting San Bernardino
- Thread starter JGWI
- Start date
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
Pearl Harbor? Why even bring that up I was referring to 9/11. No guns were used in the deadliest terror attack is my point. Guns aren't the problem in fact they are the solution to combating terror attacks.13568768:DingoSean said:
A global caliphate is a real threat whether or not you acknowledge it.
I still don't see what point you're trying to argue
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13568635:DingoSean said:
Please enlighten me on what magical gun laws would stop a law abiding citizen from committing a terror attack
13569053:Wis_Skier_23 said:
That's not what gun laws are trying to prevent. They're trying to prevent mass shootings. Terrorist attacks That you are speaking of of course could be committed with bombs, but it takes a lot more knowhow and time money and even luck to build a an adequate bomb and place it correctly than to pull a trigger...
13568931:AKhoodrat said:
Scotland yard said the same thing...
...then Jack the Ripper happened...
13569125:erikK said:
I don't understand the point behind your question...
...but gun laws as they are today wouldn't stop someone on TSA's no fly list (you know... something that you pretty much need to be violently insane or connected to terrorism to be on) from acquiring a gun. So that's a pretty big issue I'd say.
PeppermillReno
Active member
I think you just need to start deporting the families of people who do this type of shit.
Ive always got on with muslims but I know a couple of them well enough to know this radical Islam is more popular than anyone would want to admit your average guy might not be a jihadist but he sympathizes with them more than anyone wants to admit. All you need to have is an angry young man who is muslim and thats usually enough for this crap to appeal to them.
This guy had a good job with a family and stuff.
This shooting probably won Trump the election. You just have to stop the influx of more muslims into the country let other immigrants in but not them for at least a decade.
Ive always got on with muslims but I know a couple of them well enough to know this radical Islam is more popular than anyone would want to admit your average guy might not be a jihadist but he sympathizes with them more than anyone wants to admit. All you need to have is an angry young man who is muslim and thats usually enough for this crap to appeal to them.
This guy had a good job with a family and stuff.
This shooting probably won Trump the election. You just have to stop the influx of more muslims into the country let other immigrants in but not them for at least a decade.
onenerdykid
Active member
13568481:DingoSean said:
13568495:DingoSean said:
One of Reza Aslan's main positions is that religion doesn't instill values in people, but instead that people bring their values to the religion. This is not 100% false but it is false to a large extent. For sure people can use their own judgement and common sense to not follow a religious text literally. These people will generally be the moderates and (thankfully) the largest base. But it is not an accident that the vast, vast majority of Muslims do not drink alcohol or eat bacon- these are 2 activities that Muslims shun that are otherwise completely normal activities for humans to engage in. It is obviously clear that they get such values from the Qur'an.
Furthermore, Megan Phelps-Roper (the granddaughter of Fred Phelps who founded the extremely antagonistic Westboro Baptist Church) has said in interviews directly addressing Reza Aslan's position that he is false- she and her family without question got their values from the Bible and had they not read the Bible, they would have a completely different world view. Religion unquestionably gives many people their value system.
The concept of jihad is fundamental to the ideology of Islam. While some Muslims may not particularly like it or agree with it, they cannot say that the example set by Muhammad is morally wrong. That would be a blatant act of apostasy. Nothing he did during his lifetime was wrong or incorrect- he led a perfect Muslim life. So, when your moral compass is a war lord who led over 60 jihads during his lifetime, you can't exactly say that religion on its own doesn't breed jihad when the very prophet promoted it and justified it.
onenerdykid
Active member
13568843:AKhoodrat said:
13568865:J.D. said:
There are a few different types of profiling out there: racial, religious, and behavioral are the main ones people need to be discussing. As JD has said, racial profiling doesn't work because Islam isn't a specific race- it's a religion that can be practiced by any race. Religious profiling doesn't work either because how the hell do you profile a religion? The only type of profiling that will work is behavioral- assessing a person's behavior (are they saying "Allahu Akbar" while walking through security?, are they a sweaty, lying mess during questioning?, etc. etc).
If you have the time, watch this debate between ex-CIA operatives and TSA/homeland security experts on the topic. I found it to be quite interesting.
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13569100:DingoSean said:
Well they don't have to be exclusive of each other in the case of this shooting they were both. Gun laws can never stop a mass shooting. You're telling me a background check would've detected and stopped James Holmes, a guy going for his PH.D.? I think that is pretty naive to believe
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13569332:nocturnal said:
Lol wut? What are the questions going to be are you a dangerous sociopath that wants to cause harm to other people? And you think people are going to check yes to all these questions knowing they will be rejected a firearm? Come on now this is a bit ridiculous anyone can answer questions to outsmart a psychological test.
France doesn't even allow guns and how'd that turn out for them. You can't legislate the publics safety from mass shootings by some arbitrary law
cobra_commander
Active member
Aaaaaaand it's Islam...
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13569403:nocturnal said:
Please enlighten me how a psychological test will stop sociopaths from buying firearms legally or illegally for that matter? France is a gun free zone yet look what happened. They live in the perfect utopia you gun grabbing liberals want and yet these things continue to happen.
A psych test isn't a feasible solution. What about all the current gun owners, are millions of gun owners going to have to take some test and if they don't pass turn in their firearms having broken no laws?
What about false positives or vice versa for those that slip through the cracks?
That is directly infringing on your 2nd amendment rights to have some psychologist determining who is fit to own a firearm even if you are a law abiding citizen. To make millions of gun owners jump through hoops because of a small segment of lunatics is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed illegally acquiring firearms. That does nothing to address the largest offenders only impede and infringe upon law abiding citizens.
That is an America I do not want to live in
13569385:Wis_Skier_23 said:
Oh yeah! Because that'sa good comparison!
"The U.S. Allows guns and look how that turned out for them. 12,000 gun related deaths and 62 school shootings"
You're fucking dumb. The issue is much more compicated then your silly comparisons could ever do justice.
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13569435:K-Dot. said:
I don't think id consider a death toll of over 8x what ours was a success. You can have laws that help make the public a safer place but Gun control is an exhausted topic it doesn't work. It only affects those that follow the laws and does nothing to address the offenders who we should be focusing our time on
baethoven
Active member
13569511:erikK said:
They don't, but how would gun laws stop someone from going and buying a gun illegally, loading the rounds into the chamber, and shooting someone with it.
I don't totally disagree with your sentiment, but you need to understand your logic can be flipped around on you.
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
You still didn't answer my question though. How is a psych test even feasible and what are the rules and stipulations. Would there be a grandfather clause for those that already own guns?13569479:nocturnal said:
You can't look at the problem of mass shootings and only focus on the tool. Everyone is so quick to try to shove gun control down your throat that they never stop and look at whats right in front of them. THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ACTION. Radical Islam is the problem not guns.
K-Dot.
Active member
13569524:Wis_Skier_23 said:
I'll concede that gun control laws can be ineffective but then what do we do? It's easy to shoot down ideas and pick them apart but what's the end result of all of this? I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't like how people are content with the status quo. Whether you're on the left or right you should want change yet I feel like when I watch any right wing leaders talk about this stuff, they just combat what the left side said and nothing is ever accomplished. Sure the left might at times have over the top idealistic ideas but at least they're trying to do something instead of just pretending that the second ammendment is gonna save everyone.
Wis_Skier_23
Active member
13569460:Lonely said:
See your argument falls apart the moment you lump together law abiding gun owners and criminals together in the same pool.
By definition laws only affect those who follow them. Criminals aren't going down to the nearest Cabelas and purchasing a handgun and going out and robbing a gas station. They are acquiring firearms illegally and then committing their crimes. Therefore another law on the book does nothing to reduce the amount of gun violence in America.
If you don't want to own a gun that's fine but don't limit my ability to own one.
snowfinder
Active member
13569582:saskskier said:
Just one.
baethoven
Active member
13569559:The.Natty.Vegan said:
Again I'm not completely disagreeing with stricter gun laws, but if you're going to make an argument like that, support it with some facts. First define "mass shooting" for me and the metrics that go into creating these statistics. How do you adjust that to a per/capita measurement?
987321654hgfd
Active member
Again
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Looking at the pictures of the ARs they used, they are definitely illegal in California.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Looking at the pictures of the ARs they used, they are definitely illegal in California.
13569567:Wis_Skier_23 said:
Again fucking dumb.
First off I do own guns.
Also not all those gun deaths were caused by law abiding citizens
Also not all those gun deaths were caused by criminals
I was simply showing how dumb your comparison ws
You're saying that because France's gun laws, the terrorist attacks happened, and those things will happen in the u.s.
The fact that there are two guns to every American didn't make a in stopping difference in stopping the 62 shootings.
It did make a difference in that it's fucking easy to get a gun.
I can go buy and gun right now legally, and the only person who would know that I did would be my neighbor who sold it to me.
That's the issue you fucktard nobodies trying to take away guns, their trying to keep them out of the hands of the unstable people that shoot up schools.
Inb4 criminals get guns anyways so why try to prevent it
S.J.W
Active member
13569604:baethoven said:
The thing with guns is that you can use statistics to back up either side of the argument. Guns death per year vs banning guns and crime going up, etc, etc. Both sides need to come to a compromise. I think it was yesterday congress voted down a bill that would mean suspected terrorists couldn't buy guns. So if you're a radical jihadi John and on the terror watch list you can still buy and stock guns. That is fucking absurd and terrifying. In a presidential race where the GOP is rushing to who can turn away the most refugees they're still going to allow people on the terror watch list to buy guns. From an outsider looking in on Americas gun laws, they are fucked up. Just take switzerland's gun laws for example, they have a pretty big gun culture in switzerland (45 guns per 100 people) and they don't have the mass shootings the US does. Why? Because having a gun is treated like driving a car where it's a privilege not a right. That's the type of gun control the US should have. Strict mental background checks, must go through proper training (note that almost all of mass shootings stopped by a good guy with a gun has had some form of military or police training), and among other things.
baethoven
Active member
13569625:The.Natty.Vegan said:
We agree on this issue then. I only responded because I thought you were going to pull stats from that crowd sourced info graphic on how many "mass shootings" there have been this year. I'm glad you understand that gun control stats can be doctored to fit either agenda.
For those that are confused about the issue, here is a fairly centrist article on mass shooting stats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/
onenerdykid
Active member
13569451:Wis_Skier_23 said:
It is the role of the government to protect its citizens, gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Given the highly destructive nature of a gun, it is not unreasonable to say that people who want to own a gun should undergo evaluations to make sure they are fit to do so. Their right to own a gun(s) is still in place and the right itself is not infringed, unless they are deemed unfit. Being deemed unfit is a completely reasonable and acceptable way that one can lose his/her right to something. Losing your right to something happens all the time- it's the very basis for punishing someone who commits a crime.
13569567:Wis_Skier_23 said:
Just because you have the right to something, it does not follow that said right is limitless. The 2nd amendment itself sets limits (most notably applied to and for a militia). If it turns out that criminals are taking advantage of the ease with which law abiding citizens obtain/sell guns, then it should be perfectly reasonable for the government to step in and make it harder for this to happen. Which again could be done and completely allowing every legally able citizen to continue to own guns.
onenerdykid
Active member
13569567:Wis_Skier_23 said:
I had this in my original response, not sure why it didn't show up...
Your first sentence isn't true, because the law still applies to those to break it- they get punished. Laws affect the person who obeys it and the person who transgresses it, but in different ways. If your statement were true, then laws against murder would only apply to law abiding citizens who do not commit murder and this is clearly false.
To the other part of your argument, many (if not the majority?) of these mass shootings were committed with legally obtained firearms. I think this most recent shooting in San Bernardino was too (legally purchased AR-15s right?). Many aren't committed by the Mafia or some other underground network but by people who legally owned their weapons. So it is clear that more can be done to ensure that law abiding gun owners are fit to continue to own their weapons.
13569561:Wis_Skier_23 said:
The same way psychiatrists evaluate people in positions for high and jobs police officers and specialized military training.
If I'm diagnosed with schizophrenia or depression or a history of abuse or extreme violent tendencies I shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm.
If you have a child at home that has schizophrenia or some other mental disorder you shouldn't be allowed to keep guns at home.
People who fail the test and already have guns will do the same thing Australia did. Give them back or go to jail. Are you saying you want a mentally unstable person to be allowed to keep their guns that seems to be what you're saying.
I know this won't solve the gun problem overnight but this is move in the proper direction and overtime and Itll make a difference
.
Really man you're doing a terrific job defending your points. Islam is the problem......... you know we've had about a ton of school shootings this year alone none of them had to do with isis.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
Here’s the problem with gun violence.
The problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the United States and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.
In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.
The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more but enough of that lets stop comparing and get down to the core of the problem.
Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than all of you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these PROBLEMS, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do. We also know that mass shootings seem to get the bulk of attention, yet suicides comprise a majority of gun deaths. No one seems to talk about this.
All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. We have politicians already introducing legislation before they understand what the problem stems from.
For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a ‘subset' of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.
We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. In many states it’s a long and tedious process to obtain a firearm and rightfully so. Most people who complain about how purchasing a firearm is like buying candy from a candy store, have probably never attempted to purchase a firearm. Background checks, the ATF paperwork and waiting periods (not all states) are still required. The anti-gun crowd would have you believe it's quiet easy to waltz into any skeezy gun store, drop $50 on the counter and moonwalk out with a bazooka. And people who've never actually tried to buy one believe it. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime DECREASED by 51% from1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%!!
Furthermore, the anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a DISCONNECTION here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. Violence most often than not follows a logic.
There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?
We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an almost immediate celebrity. Violence just might be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.
This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for survival is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.
Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.
Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.
Maybe we ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand that logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.
There’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.
Logic most often than not is due to environment. The most affecting genetically worst thing for a developing mind is the environment. We can fix many of these mental illness problems by fixing behavior and addressing their environment and susceptibility. A mind without stimulus to develop would go into trauma as a rejection and then it begins to change chemically. Imagine having your father beat on your mother constantly a a child?
I think we need to think about environment and behavior to fix this problem, and this has been going on for generations so it is going to take many more to fix. It isn’t as simple as banning guns or passing a few laws, it doesn’t and never will work like that.
But hey what do I know I’m a stupid conspiracy theorist. Right?
The problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the United States and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.
In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.
The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more but enough of that lets stop comparing and get down to the core of the problem.
Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than all of you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these PROBLEMS, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do. We also know that mass shootings seem to get the bulk of attention, yet suicides comprise a majority of gun deaths. No one seems to talk about this.
All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. We have politicians already introducing legislation before they understand what the problem stems from.
For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a ‘subset' of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.
We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. In many states it’s a long and tedious process to obtain a firearm and rightfully so. Most people who complain about how purchasing a firearm is like buying candy from a candy store, have probably never attempted to purchase a firearm. Background checks, the ATF paperwork and waiting periods (not all states) are still required. The anti-gun crowd would have you believe it's quiet easy to waltz into any skeezy gun store, drop $50 on the counter and moonwalk out with a bazooka. And people who've never actually tried to buy one believe it. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime DECREASED by 51% from1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%!!
Furthermore, the anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a DISCONNECTION here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. Violence most often than not follows a logic.
There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?
We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an almost immediate celebrity. Violence just might be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.
This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for survival is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.
Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.
Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.
Maybe we ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand that logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.
There’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.
Logic most often than not is due to environment. The most affecting genetically worst thing for a developing mind is the environment. We can fix many of these mental illness problems by fixing behavior and addressing their environment and susceptibility. A mind without stimulus to develop would go into trauma as a rejection and then it begins to change chemically. Imagine having your father beat on your mother constantly a a child?
I think we need to think about environment and behavior to fix this problem, and this has been going on for generations so it is going to take many more to fix. It isn’t as simple as banning guns or passing a few laws, it doesn’t and never will work like that.
But hey what do I know I’m a stupid conspiracy theorist. Right?
Bombogenesis
Active member
13569809:nocturnal said:
I I think you need to look at where a extreme majority of gun violence occurs, how it occurs and why it occurs. Then, I think you need to reread your post and tell me if it still matters.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
Also, this shooting is beyond bizarre. I’ve been following it and I hope some of you guys can answer a few of my questions.
Why would two parents who just had a child both do this and where did the wife even get training to use an AK-47. I mean she came directly from Pakistan, so maybe she was trained there? Wouldn't it make more sense for the wife to stay behind and maybe flee the country with her child. Maybe, I’m wrong but why would they even show up at the Christmas party prior to the shooting? It seemed to be premeditated since he was building bombs in his garage. And how did they manage to escape police who were on the scene in minutes. They conducted monthly terrorist drills so they were obviously trained for similar scenarios. And don’t terrorists usually fall martyr, instead of fleeing the scene? And I have yet to see any footage of the police chase. I mean they forgot their 6 month old daughter, so they drive back to their apartment? Are these people crazy? Pledging allegiance to ISIS MID SHOOTING? Seems odd.
And what happened to the third suspect? Key eyewitnesses accounted for three Caucasian shooters all being men. Yet, it turned out to be two black people, one of which was a women?
The most BIZARRE thing was that the media ransacked their apartment! They even were tampering with the evidence? I mean supposedly 12 pipe bombs in apartment, yet the media ransacks the place? I mean did the media assist the landlord in breaking down the boards? Now i’m hearing that the landlord later claimed that they just rushed at him and demanded to pry open the door?
Only in America can the media tamper with evidence.
Why would two parents who just had a child both do this and where did the wife even get training to use an AK-47. I mean she came directly from Pakistan, so maybe she was trained there? Wouldn't it make more sense for the wife to stay behind and maybe flee the country with her child. Maybe, I’m wrong but why would they even show up at the Christmas party prior to the shooting? It seemed to be premeditated since he was building bombs in his garage. And how did they manage to escape police who were on the scene in minutes. They conducted monthly terrorist drills so they were obviously trained for similar scenarios. And don’t terrorists usually fall martyr, instead of fleeing the scene? And I have yet to see any footage of the police chase. I mean they forgot their 6 month old daughter, so they drive back to their apartment? Are these people crazy? Pledging allegiance to ISIS MID SHOOTING? Seems odd.
And what happened to the third suspect? Key eyewitnesses accounted for three Caucasian shooters all being men. Yet, it turned out to be two black people, one of which was a women?
The most BIZARRE thing was that the media ransacked their apartment! They even were tampering with the evidence? I mean supposedly 12 pipe bombs in apartment, yet the media ransacks the place? I mean did the media assist the landlord in breaking down the boards? Now i’m hearing that the landlord later claimed that they just rushed at him and demanded to pry open the door?
Only in America can the media tamper with evidence.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
Wow, the camera guy arranged IDs on the bed for a better shot. They put the id's next to a Koran. wtf.