San Bernardino Shooting

[BrianSD_42]

Authorities Release Names Of The 14 People Killed In San Bernardino Shooting : The Two-Way : NPR

Bennetta Betbadal, 46, of Rialto;

Aurora Godoy, 26, of San Jacinto; Isaac Amanios, 60, of Fontana; Yvette Velasco, 27, of Fontana, Harry Bowman, 46, of Upland; Robert Adams, 40, of Yucaipa; Tin Nguyen, 31, of Santa Ana; and Juan Espinoza, 50, of Highland, California.


She fled Iran to America at the age of 18 to escape Islamic extremism and the persecution of Christians that followed the Iranian Revolution. Benneta initially settled in New York City, eventually moving to California and marrying her husband, Arlen Verdehyou, a police officer. They moved to Rialto, California and had three children, now ages 10, 12, and 15."

 

[KidVermicious]

^ Aww, crap.

 

[Thai]

ISIS link afterall...shocking!! Those thugs sure get around!

 

[good2go]

Regardless of the reasons: personal hadred or radical/extreme Jihad, this is (domestic) terrorism when you murde 14 people and injured/attempted murdered 21 others - just pure hadred or extremist A$$H0LES! The evolving circumstances pointed to the latter. FBI don't typically involved in local shooting investigations unless there's a nexus to terrorism or homeland security.

However, My heart gies outnto the victims and their families and hat off to the brave first responders in blue, yellow, red....

 

[ben550]

Today's New York Times front page. They still claim "Motives Unknown"... unbelievable.

Long list of weapons used/found... Another attack on gun culture. This page is slanted heavily against "gun culture" and only mentions "Islam" or "Muslim" or "Terrorism" in the fine print... All the headlines are about the "horrible guns used" never mind the worthless degenerates who used them...

This was a terrorist attack. I agree with some of the previous posters. In the general sense I think any shooting like this can be labeled terrorism. Whether it is a single person shooting up a church (SC) or one guy shooting up a recruiting station (TN) or a kid going to a school killing first graders (CT) or a man going on a tirade and beheading a female coworker (KS) or a man shooting up a movie theater (CO) it is terrorism. It terrorizes the community. It shatters lives, families, communities, etc.

In order for this to be stopped political correctness will have to be turned off. Those who support this type of activity will have to be exported. Any religious institution preaching violence will have to be disbanded/defunded/shut down (whether it is a mosque preaching jihad against the kaffers (common), or a church preaching violence against pro choice (rare) etc...

The FBI has a new approach undoutably pushed by the Whitehouse... FBI to Seek Counseling, Not Handcuffs, for Some Islamic State Suspects - WSJ

 

[ndcent]

People on the terror watch list aren't banned from buying guns, but yeah, additional gun control laws won't do anything so let's do nothing.

No fly list? You can buy a gun too.

No problems here, mental health something something.

 

[ndcent]

 

[RandyDaytona]

That's more politically based. After all they fall under the executive branch.

I think it's because the FBI can charge anyone else found to be involved if it IS deemed to be a terrorist attack, and since it's a criminal investigation, no one is going to call it terrorism - even though it certainly seems to be - until all evidence has been gathered and looked at. That's why we're seeing "alleged" everywhere, not only in this case, but also with the CO Springs shooting. Even if you walk into a clinic, start killing people, then surrender and go to jail, you still get your day in court.

strangely enough they basically wash their hands of people and organizations that commit these acts.

I think this is part of the problem. When disaffected Muslim youths are turning to radical groups like ISIS, the only people who can really prevent that are their own - parents, teachers, religious leaders, and the rest of the community. I think they have a responsibility to do more than simply say "they're not Muslim" and leave it at that (not disagreeing with anything you said - just making a point).

As far as the reactions from the political left and right, both sides seem to be missing the point. Banning more guns isn't the solution, but do we really need to reject common sense bills like the one that died just recently? It would have restricted gun sales to people who are on the FBIs terrorist watch list. Seriously? That should be a "no sh$&" piece of legislation, in my opinion. But Republicans and the gun lobby (which seems to have so many of them in their pocket) can't figure out that this might be a good thing to have?

 

[ndcent]

That's right. It's all their fault all these shootings happened thought right?

All their fault? No, but the NRA does have blood on it's hands.

 

[Brique]

All their fault? No, but the NRA does have blood on it's hands.

How so?

 

[T4R2014]

People on the terror watch list aren't banned from buying guns, but yeah, additional gun control laws won't do anything so let's do nothing.

No fly list? You can buy a gun too.

No problems here, mental health something something.

That actually makes me rethink my prior comment. Good point ndcent. Not necessarily a ban on guns would be the answer, though. But yes, loopholes like this should be taken care of.

I don't think that the suspects in this case were on the terror watch list, though.

 

[BrianSD_42]

For what its worth, these people were not on either watchlist.

 

[Thai]

For what its worth, these people were not on either watchlist.

And future terrorists won't be. They know our system already. They have been studying it for over a decade. The folks on the lists will be used as distraction. FBI and CIA will be fighting an uphill battle (if not already) in identifying these individuals and capturing them before harm is done. You're going to see a lot of "walk-thrus" by Muslim extremists to test our system.

This is why "background" screening of Syrian immigrants will yield very little benefit.

ISIS is hitting soft spots. They won't do 9/11 again. They won't hit national parks etc.. They will hit spots that have no security, slow police response, etc..

 

[RedSled]

And future terrorists won't be. They know our system already. They have been studying it for over a decade. The folks on the lists will be used as distraction. FBI and CIA will be fighting an uphill battle (if not already) in identifying these individuals and capturing them before harm is done. You're going to see a lot of "walk-thrus" by Muslim extremists to test our system.

This is why "background" screening of Syrian immigrants will yield very little benefit.

ISIS is hitting soft spots. They won't do 9/11 again. They won't hit national parks etc.. They will hit spots that have no security, slow police response, etc..

I have to agree with this, and the sooner our government disarms the honest people the better the extremists will like it.

 

[JeepKiller]

All their fault? No, but the NRA does have blood on it's hands.

Care to explain? I'm not following why the NRA has anything to do with a Muslim terrorist killing innocent people. Regardless if we ban guns or make gun laws tighter people that want guns will get guns. It's not like someone that's willing to commit murder is going to be tripped up by the fact that it's now illegal to own guns. Yes it'll make obtaining guns harder to obtain for terrorists, but it will turn this nation into one of sheep. (The following is merely speculation) They'll start targeting more than just states that have strict gun laws, they'll start targeting all the states which will make them harder to predict.

 

[Thai]

Yes it'll make obtaining guns harder to obtain for terrorists, but it will turn this nation into one of sheep. (The following is merely speculation) They'll start targeting more than just states that have strict gun laws, they'll start targeting all the states which will make them harder to predict.

I doubt that gun control laws are doing anything to limit weapons getting into the hands of terrorists!! See Paris attack as a prime example. France has one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

The gun laws will affect ONLY ONE group of people...the good folks that follow the law.

 

[ndcent]

Do you believe if we had more knowledge about gun violence in the United States we could prevent or decrease senseless gun deaths? Not all, obviously but some.

The NRA gives "donations" to politicians who author or sponsor bills that prohibit the federal government from funding research into gun violence a la the Dickey Amendment.

This is just one example of their culpability in gun violence.

Why ban knowledge? Because greed.

 

[JeepKiller]

Regardless of if we ban guns or make gun laws tighter people that want guns will get guns. It's not like someone that's willing to commit murder is going to be tripped up by the fact that it's now illegal to own guns.

I know nothing will stop them from obtaining guns, just trying to play devils advocate and I am still finding flaws. More guns and less gun restricting laws (laws referring to what you can and can't have, where, and when. Not who) means that more people have guns to defend themselves. California needs to take this as a wake up call about their strict gun laws, but they're taking it in the opposite direction it needs to go.

 

[JeepKiller]

Do you believe if we had more knowledge about gun violence in the United States we could prevent or decrease senseless gun deaths? Not all, obviously but some.

The NRA gives "donations" to politicians who author or sponsor bills that prohibit the federal government from funding research into gun violence a la the Dickey Amendment.

This is just one example of their culpability in gun violence.

Why ban knowledge? Because greed.

Your point of view is one of the most distorted I've ever seen. "Gun violence" should be renamed to "people violence". If someone wants to commit an act of terror they will do it regardless of what the laws states. They're already committing a felony, why not commit another? Most of these people would actually PREFER that they die in the act. You're ridiculously misguided.

 

[ndcent]

Well at least one poster doesn't prefer knowledge.

No one is coming to take our guns, the irrational anger to that imaginary argument is amusing but I wish more people would join the adult conversation on ways to make our society safer from widespread gun violence.