Thoughts on the Inane Political Reaction to San Bernardino

[Trausti]

It was clear regardless of the religion of these people that their mindset was that life is hopeless and dying is better than living with their feelings of hopelessness. They knew they were committing suicide. That kind of hopelessness does not require a religion to inspire people to do terrible things...like what happened here. I feel these people had gone off the deep end and their act was simply not one of a functional human being.

Think this is off the mark. Becoming a Shahid is a religious devotional act in Islam. To them, dying for their religion while killing kafirs is not an act of hopelessness but of celebration. This is one of the many significant distinctions between Christianity and Islam. Check out interviews of failed Muslim suicide bombers.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

 

[Trausti]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

I meant the distinction between a Christian martyr and an Islamic one. A Christian martyr is killed for holding onto the faith despite the consequences. A Muslim martyr is killed while killing (or attempting to kill) infidels.

Christian martyrs don't have 72 virgins as a prize.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't Islam against committing suicide, killing unarmed people, and killing children of unbelievers?

 

[arkirk]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

Righto old boy! There ain't nothing about martyrdom in Christianity except:

The whole fucking thing. Christians and Jews both have no trouble killing infidels. They have the LRA in Ugands, the IDF in Israel, and of course a lot earlier the Zealots at Masada. It is all one big tangled mess of hatred and infidel labeling. Of course the worst of all...I have heard our political leaders tell us "You won't find an Atheist in a foxhole." A proper reply to that would be UNLESS A BUNCH OF CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Those poor people in San Bernadino. If only they had the benefit of California's strict gun control laws.

 

[arkirk]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

I meant the distinction between a Christian martyr and an Islamic one. A Christian martyr is killed for holding onto the faith despite the consequences. A Muslim martyr is killed while killing (or attempting to kill) infidels.

Christian martyrs don't have 72 virgins as a prize.

They're just delivering ostrich eggs. I think the Muslims have had a long history of being under the thumb of well armed Europeans and still have not been able to overcome that so their methods involve infiltration and suicide. It is not religious. It is simply the fact they do not have the F-16's to attack with and they are left with ostrich eggs. The promise of virgins etc. is just a little added luxury thrown in for those who will serve for reward only.

 

[ZiprHead]

The last word I heard was that they were all legally procured. That just came over the news. I saw some pictures of the guns. There was no word if they were fully automatic or not...and that would make a difference if they were legal. Considering their ammo supply it would almost seem they would be.. I have always favored a different approach to gun control. Apply law only to what you can easily control. For the rest...stop all this shit about the American Heritage being all about guns. Even if it were true, that is not what people should be living for...to shoot guns..give me a break. Guns do not do much good in this world. That is so obvious, yet all the pretty Hollywood celebrities in their movies glamorizing glocks ...it becomes a kind of sickness and had gotten the gun a kind of cult worship of which it is not worthy. I think the answer is a public awareness program against gun dangers...just like tobacco and booze. There is a reason the agency that deals with these things has lumped them together...for all too many people these things are killers.

Part of the reason we don't have a good public awareness program is because the NRA claims to be doing that and it very strongly just advocates everybody needs a gun. It has coopted a function the government should be performing then turned the entire field into one big advertising push for more guns and ammo.

Just heard a little while ago that one of them was modified to full auto.

 

[untermensche]

But decency... is it too much to ask for common decency...to show more warmth than a political slogan?

From who?

The party that used 911 to drive the country into the insanity called the invasion of Iraq?

The party that still stands behind that insanity?

The party that uses hatreds of gays, blacks and Muslims to win elections?

The party that really has no agenda beyond government kickbacks in the form of lower taxes to those who need it least?

And the crumbling infrastructure and institutions that goes along with that?

Sure, decency, lets get some.

Go Bernie!

 

[Nexus]

Really? 14 people are murdered and that is enough evidence to reject refugees from a nation that these people didn't come from (the guy was born in the US).

Actually rejecting refugees should be the starting point in this discussion. If you want them here so bad you should make some convincing arguments why we should let them in and how it will benefit us.

 

[maxparrish]

None have said that politicians offering their thoughts and prayers are unaware of political consequences, nor that such offerings are always sincere. Rather, what I (and a few others) have said is that the manner in which a political person of stature chooses to react tells us much about their character, or lack of it. When Obama or others chooses to express their sympathies to the surviving victims, the sympathies held by the overwhelming majority, we assume that they are sincere.

But even if they are not, at least we see that the person respects the social boundaries given to mourning and grief. Regardless of motivation, at least they have the grace to do the right thing

Well, I am glad you agree that politicians who do this and nothing else are just as bad as the politicians you decried in your OP. And those who offer only their thoughts and prayers show their character, which is immediately pandering to their base in the face of tragedy, and then doing nothing else about it.

If they are going to do nothing but offer their thoughts and prayers, then no, they are not doing the right thing.

Your inability or unwillingness to read my comments for comprehension might be mistaken for mindless partisanship. I am confident that, if given another opportunity, you will not make the same mistake again.

I did not agree that politicians who offer thoughts and prayers (sincere or otherwise) are just as bad - I stated just the opposite. I stated that no one denies that politicians and others are aware of potential political consequences (positive or negative) to their comments, and that no one is saying every comment is sincere. But EVEN IF some are insincere (although there is no evidence they are) at least they respect mourning and show grace.

How that spurs you to charge that "(all) those who only offer their thoughts and prayers" are "pandering to their base" is a puzzle - well, unless you source it in mind-reading or divine revelation. You don't know that any are insincere, and therefore only doing it for political purposes.

You've inadvertently supported my point by illustration. Swamp fevered partisans always assume, in every life circumstance, bad faith upon those they consider political enemies and that is only a symptom of the problem I have been speaking of - the poisoning by a relentless politicization and partisanship in all social experience by our political class. NOTHING of good will can be granted to the enemy in ANY circumstance - right?

So yes, I embrace mourning and grief as the most important first reaction of a national leadership class.

Mourning and grief as a first step, sure, that is all well and good. Doing that while fully intending to take no additional steps, however, is where the problem lies.

Why? What is it about those on the left that compels them to demand everyone else "prove" their sincerity and/or grief by going political and demanding actions the left agrees with?

Why must the first reaction be "Some folks in California died, I refuse to accept that, vote for me!"?

As I said, the animus that propelled the Paul Wellstone funeral OR being a decent human being is not a false choice...it's the only choice.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then you shouldn't have used the strawman that...

"You" who? Perhaps you are confused.

But the same point applies. It's not logically possible to prevent all mass shootings. But they are far more common than they could be, and the REASON they are so common is because they are very easy to pull off. A broad cross section of Americans want to make mass shootings a rare and unusual occurrence; the hardcore gun nuts and NRA fellators don't think mass shootings are really a problem and don't want to do anything about it that might inconvenience them in any way.

Legal availability of guns is only one part of the issue of violent crime in a country.

Yes it is, and it's a part that could be remedied relatively easily with reasonable gun control laws.

The risks of gun violence are primarily drug/gang related...

Even assuming this was true (which it isn't) this doesn't change the OTHER risk factors posed by widespread and uncontrolled gun ownership, significantly, the rising frequency of mass shootings which are rarely if ever drug/gang related.

the ability to defend myself from bigger stronger and tougher multiple attackers...

... is not an ability that guns actually provide. If you want to use a defensive weapon, you're better off enrolling in a martial arts class and learning nunchaku or quarter staffs. Or hell, buy a can of mace or a stun gun (the latter being far less likely to be taken away from you and used against you in a fight).

But this is sort of proving my point. The only benefits you can name are imaginary ones (e.g. "Guns make me a badass and nobody will ever mess with me!") and you both understate the risks and draw attention away from them by (falsely) claiming that most gun violence is gang-related. If you try to make this about facts, the actual EVIDENCE overwhelmingly suggests that guns are too widespread, that too often they are not properly secured, and that too many people have access to them who shouldn't. When it's all said and done, your only fallback position is exactly as you stated: "I like guns! Don't take my guns!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even one is a problem.

That said, the same goes for Christians, Jews, and anyone of any other faith, or even anyone who lacks faith, who is like that.

Keeping refugees out of your country is not going to solve that problem. Especially when those refugees are fleeing from the very same problem in their own country.

It was clear regardless of the religion of these people that their mindset was that life is hopeless and dying is better than living with their feelings of hopelessness. They knew they were committing suicide. That kind of hopelessness does not require a religion to inspire people to do terrible things...like what happened here. I feel these people had gone off the deep end and their act was simply not one of a functional human being.

It seems like Max was taking offense at Hillary for cranking out some gun control language he didn't like. Be careful Max that you don't become hopeless and find yourself armed to the teeth with a nice soft eminently blame-able target nearby. Perhaps it would be best if you would take your weapons to one of these police gun buy backs now before Hillary makes you feel even more hopeless with her inanity.

The usual formula is loser + recruiter. It is not a matter of hopelessness!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

Righto old boy! There ain't nothing about martyrdom in Christianity except:
View attachment 4930
The whole fucking thing. Christians and Jews both have no trouble killing infidels. They have the LRA in Ugands, the IDF in Israel, and of course a lot earlier the Zealots at Masada. It is all one big tangled mess of hatred and infidel labeling. Of course the worst of all...I have heard our political leaders tell us "You won't find an Atheist in a foxhole." A proper reply to that would be UNLESS A BUNCH OF CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM.

And you fail to understand that terrorist movements always have backers. No backers, no terrorism.

And your reference to Masada shows your anti-semitism. The Jews weren't out to kill anyone at Masada. They were the ones being attacked!

- - - Updated - - -

They're just delivering ostrich eggs. I think the Muslims have had a long history of being under the thumb of well armed Europeans and still have not been able to overcome that so their methods involve infiltration and suicide. It is not religious. It is simply the fact they do not have the F-16's to attack with and they are left with ostrich eggs. The promise of virgins etc. is just a little added luxury thrown in for those who will serve for reward only.

They weren't under the thumb of any Europeans when the current wave of terrorism started.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? 14 people are murdered and that is enough evidence to reject refugees from a nation that these people didn't come from (the guy was born in the US).

Actually rejecting refugees should be the starting point in this discussion. If you want them here so bad you should make some convincing arguments why we should let them in and how it will benefit us.

The reason for letting them in isn't to benefit us, it's for humanitarian reasons.

However, it's impossible to tell an Islamist from a non-violent fundie and we aren't willing to exclude people for being fundies. Thus the screening is inherently impossible and we shouldn't let them in for reasons of safety.

 

[repoman]

This is a funny and very sarcastic video about the madness surrounding the attack. Brought to you by the guy who made the videos that kickstarted gamergate into overdrive.



He is back at the top of his game. He is also one of the rare few who refuses to monetize his videos.

 

[fast]

“In the present case it is a little inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in the Republic." (HL Mencken).

In the wake of the San Bernardino it was inevitable that the ruling political classes and their fellow-travelers would use the pain and grief of many as a mule for their causes. As of yet, none of the aspiring candidates have offered to drum major or grand marshall a mass funeral procession, to stand on the caskets and provide orations of rage, or lead a mob to a lynching in effigy of their favorite demon but rest assured some are thinking of doing so.

And herein may be the importance of this tragedy - it says less about American society and gun violence than it says about America's leaders and supportive political class. What might be an opportunity for shared grief and a reflective exchange is becoming a vulgar call against the usual political enemies with the usual jeers and cheers. Some do so because they truly embrace their manichean world views as totalizing - others merely because they are cynical jackal yowlers, seeing an opening to feed their pack with bones and meat.

But indulge me. Consider the blistering and cynical sprint to capitalize, before the bodies were cold (O'Malley edging out Hillary at 11:36 am yesterday):

I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H (Clinton) (https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/672139564346187776 …

Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino. Enough is enough: it's time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws (O'Malley).

Menchen might have asked "What kind of indecency, dishonesty, and lack of common sense" leads to these as the first reaction to exploit tragedy, long before any facts are known? That the shooters, weapons, motives, and targets were sketchy or unknown was irrelevant. Have politics have so consumed their lives that the only and most important expression of warmth or caring is, within a few hours, to tweet out the cadre's political call "we must take action against the NRA" slogan. Really?

So would the wounded clinging to life, or the dead (if they could speak), be enamored with our prospective leaders, within two hours using their pain and death as a get out the voters effort? What next, partisan jeers between those who attend the funerals? These are the "humans" we elect?

They want to lead - I get that. They want power, I get that too. The have no sense of guilt or shame, and are incapable of such feelings - fine. Their supporters mock expressions of sympathy and prayer, I get that too. And yes, dishonesty and nonsense is their stock and trade.

But decency... is it too much to ask for common decency...to show more warmth than a political slogan?

To be human? Apparently so.

I, for one, appreciate your post.

 

[Nexus]

"You" who? Perhaps you are confused.

Pointless rhetoric from you.

Legal availability of guns is only one part of the issue of violent crime in a country.

Yes it is, and it's a part that could be remedied relatively easily with reasonable gun control laws.

That part which won't help in the murder rate. Mexico disproves your assertion that strict gun laws make a country safe.

The risks of gun violence are primarily drug/gang related...

Even assuming this was true (which it isn't) this doesn't change the OTHER risk factors posed by widespread and uncontrolled gun ownership, significantly, the rising frequency of mass shootings which are rarely if ever drug/gang related.

Of the 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (between 700-800 deaths). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths and are classified as homicides. Mass shootings are statistically insignificant in the overall gun violence rate. The other risk factor in gun ownership accidental shooting is also low enough to not worry about. While there are no nationwide statistic on gang violence, in New Orleans, between 35-55% of homicides are classified as gang-related. In Chicago, an estimated 80% of homicides are gang-related. And in Baltimore, the police commissioner states that 80% of homicides are drug-related.

... is not an ability that guns actually provide. If you want to use a defensive weapon, you're better off enrolling in a martial arts class and learning nunchaku or quarter staffs.

Now you have proven you speak from total ignorance. No martial art works effectively against multiple attackers. And nunchaku is a virtually useless weapon. Don't put your faith in Bruce Lee movies for personal safety.

But this is sort of proving my point. The only benefits you can name are imaginary ones (e.g. "Guns make me a badass and nobody will ever mess with me!") and you both understate the risks and draw attention away from them by (falsely) claiming that most gun violence is gang-related. If you try to make this about facts, the actual EVIDENCE overwhelmingly suggests that guns are too widespread, that too often they are not properly secured, and that too many people have access to them who shouldn't. When it's all said and done, your only fallback position is exactly as you stated: "I like guns! Don't take my guns!"

Your false assumptions and denial of facts don't prove your point or make your strawmen arguments valid.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And you fail to understand that terrorist movements always have backers. No backers, no terrorism.

That's not actually true at the domestic level. The KKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the PFLP never had material support from abroad. Neither did the Tamil Tigers, for that matter.

And your reference to Masada shows your anti-semitism. The Jews weren't out to kill anyone at Masada. They were the ones being attacked!

BY CHRISTIANS, which is the entire point of this post. Pay attention, LP.

However, it's impossible to tell an Islamist from a non-violent fundie and we aren't willing to exclude people for being fundies. Thus the screening is inherently impossible and we shouldn't let them in for reasons of safety.

The only problem with this theory is violent fundamentalists don't actually disguise themselves as refugees for infiltration purposes; it would take them YEARS to establish themselves in their new community well enough to actually begin planning attacks like we saw in Paris.

ISIS would rather recruit people who already live here and know what a good target would be if they wanted to hit one. Sending soldiers disguised as refugees, on the other hand, would be a waste of time... UNLESS those refugees are meeting up with people who are already here and are simply joining a larger, already-planned attack.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Gun control will have little effect on the criminal use of guns--if they can smuggle in drugs they can smuggle in guns. It also will do little about the third of a billion guns already around.

This is one of the most popular counter-arguments to gun control despite the fact that it is, with rare exception, provably untrue. I'm sick of quoting the statistics for Europe and Japan, so I won't.

But how about this: no more new gun sales and no sales of spare parts and ammunition.

Over the course of a few years, people would still own their guns except they'd be useless and/or have nothing to shoot out of them.

Some smuggling would happen. Certainly. But a cheap .38 that can be had for $300 or so right now would then probably cost 5+ times as much. The closest thing to compare it to is legalized pot. Half an ounce of really good shit is a grand or more "on the street." But if you have a card it's about $150-200.

To shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, there's simply nothing that can be done," is contrary to reality and continues to support that alarming number of firearms murders.

As for yet another round of "Pray for the dead and their families," fuck that. Do something. Prayer obviously isn't working and it rings really fucking hollow following something like this.

 

[RavenSky]

I think Barbara Boxer is confused. Boxer says gun laws in California work

California's more stringent laws don't appear to have proven they reduce shootings. I hope they don't pass national laws that "reduce" shootings in my state to the level of her state. We don't need that level of added violence here.

Next year the legislature here will probably introduce a bill to go back to constitutional carry; like Kansas recently passed. Then you'd only need a concealed carry permit if you wanted reciprocity with another state.

And note the San Bernardino shooting seems to have involved guns that aren't California-legal. Gun laws do basically nothing about smuggling in guns.

All four guns were obtained legally under current laws. (That's the problem) The two handguns were legally purchased by Syed Farook from a San Diego gun shop prior to his marriage. The two assault rifles were legally purchased by a third-party from a different gun shop in California. Although California has a ban on assault weapons, these assault rifles are allowed under what they call the "button bullet loophole".

The fact that the third-party purchased them, were never reported stolen, yet ended up in the hands of these mass-murderers is another one of those loopholes sensible gun-control people want closed, but the NRA and gun-nuts go insane about when suggested.

California legislation to close the "button bullet loophole" was very recently shot down by gun-nuts and their Republican politicians. Even if passed, it would have been too late to stop these shooters, but doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy that the next wanna-be domestic terrorist can go buy one (or ten) of these assault rifles with no problem?