How come the police left behind ID cards, photos, and even shredded documents in the bin by the desk? Isn't that important evidence?

12/5/2015 5:04:38 PM

I cant believe that these people murdered and maimed dozens of people, and there are Americans are upset that their privacy was violated in some way.

12/5/2015 5:11:55 PM

Quote :

"How come the police left behind ID cards, photos, and even shredded documents in the bin by the desk? Isn't that important evidence?"

It would seem so, its possible they fucked up. Either that or they went through all of it, took pictures, and decided the rest was of no use to them. They a 5 page list of items out, so its not like they did not seize anything.

12/5/2015 5:15:14 PM

I think most are confused because it seems awfully quick to just completely contaminate a crime scene (not sure if it would be called an actual crime scene but you get the point). There are a lot of unanswered questions that could possibly be answered with things in the house.

12/5/2015 5:20:28 PM

The FBI said they are not allowed to hold a crime scene indefinitely. Once they post the seized items list they have to turn control of everything else back to the owner. I guess they have to follow that process to ensure someone cant claim in court that their 4th amendment rights were violated and have evidence suppressed?

It seems fast to me too, but hey its the FBI....hopefully they know what they are doing.

12/5/2015 5:31:18 PM

It's less bad that they raided the apt legally, but still bad they feel to need to livestream rummaging through basically garbage. There's no utility is showing this other than to create false hype. They're better of gaining access then methodically going through stuff, then reporting it.

12/5/2015 8:30:24 PM

I would be pissed about it if they hadnt killed so many people

12/5/2015 8:50:48 PM

If only this was the only problem with the 24 hr news media in this country

12/5/2015 10:56:53 PM

the dude who bought the assault rifles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348328/The-baby-faced-nerd-bought-assault-style-weapons-childhood-best-friend-Syed-Farook-checked-mental-hospital-hours-office-party-massacre.html

his father finally speaks up and confesses that his son supported IS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348276/Momma-s-boy-Farook-fiercely-religious-conservative-told-dad-shared-ideology-ISIS-wanted-eliminate-Israel.html

12/6/2015 8:46:08 PM

Quote :

"NE OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE MASS SHOOTINGS THIS YEAR WAS"

Not to diminish lost lives, but I believe this 353 mass shootings is really just moving the goalposts on the definition of mass shootings to fit a particular narrative. By government definition, which has been used for quite a while and uncontested, there have been like 3-4.

12/7/2015 8:42:53 AM

so what you are saying is that this is a... false narrative

12/7/2015 9:28:46 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/07/more-than-one-mass-shooting-day-how-media-were-misled.html
http://www.boston.com/news/2015/12/05/how-define-mass-shooting-competing-tallies-tell-different-stories/YDvdfrkkXk09GftqYq5L5O/story.html

Quote :

"“Four people killed is very different than four people injured. Why combine them all in one part?” Fox said. “The outcome matters.”"

Why should the outcome matter?

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 9:57 AM. Reason : FBI's definition sounds more like the definition of a mass murder and not a mass shooting]

12/7/2015 9:55:04 AM

Quote :

"Not to diminish lost lives, but I believe this 353 mass shootings is really just moving the goalposts on the definition of mass shootings to fit a particular narrative. By government definition, which has been used for quite a while and uncontested, there have been like 3-4."

You're thinking of mass murders, which the federal government describes as an event where 4+ people are murdered. There have been 41 mass murders in the country this year. So if that makes us all feel better, we can say we're averaging less than 1 mass murder a week! Hooray!

But I appreciate you reading Mother Jones and including their fabricated bullshit statistic that is built to exclude as many mass murders as possible. They like to exclude any instances of gang violence, armed robbery, or domestic violence, as well as any instance where there was more than one shooter. That, dtownral is the real false narrative

But really, any attempt to say we shouldn't pay attention to the mass shooting tracker because it's not what the federal government uses to define mass murder is just more obfuscation on behalf of gun nuts.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2015 10:11:40 AM

why should those scenarios be excluded, are they not also evidence of a problem that we have?

12/7/2015 10:23:46 AM

That's my point...

12/7/2015 10:34:28 AM

i think you mean your narrative

12/7/2015 11:05:38 AM

Quote :

"You're thinking of mass murders, which the federal government describes as an event where 4+ people are murdered. There have been 41 mass murders in the country this year. So if that makes us all feel better, we can say we're averaging less than 1 mass murder a week! Hooray! But I appreciate you reading Mother Jones and including their fabricated bullshit statistic that is built to exclude as many mass murders as possible. They like to exclude any instances of gang violence, armed robbery, or domestic violence, as well as any instance where there was more than one shooter. That, dtownral is the real false narrative But really, any attempt to say we shouldn't pay attention to the mass shooting tracker because it's not what the federal government uses to define mass murder is just more obfuscation on behalf of gun nuts."

I don't even know what mother jones is. And nowhere did I say anything should be ignored. Unlike most gun rights supporters, I do believe changes need to be made. I just don't believe in coming up with numbers and "facts" to fit narratives. Regardless of the type of event, crimes involving firearms are a problem that need a solution. I know the right will want to grill me as being part of the "we must do something" crowd, but I don't care. In reality, I don't get the opposition to making changes. People killing people is a problem, and firearms are a major contributor to these killings. So yes, this problem does need to be discussed, sans emotion and statistics to fit narratives, and yes, it requires changes to laws.

Ensuring that all firearm sells go through a background check, either directly through NICS or state permits, isn't a huge burden; though is largely already the case. I don't think it will solve the issue, but it's a good step. I think a permit, just like the CCH permit, would be a good start for all firearm owners. Training and education aren't huge burdens. They are reasonable regulations on a constitutional right. Hell, at one time, most gun rights supporters supported the idea of concealed carry permits and their requirements. I like the idea of constitution carry in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice. I abhor the recent push for constitutional carry. Our constitutional rights are not absolute rights. They are subject to reasonable regulation and I'm fine with that. I think the biggest issue is straw purchasers, but I don't know a solution to that. But what gets overlooked in most of these gun control debates is the human factor. Why are these people going on killing sprees? Why are we not identifying them? Many of these mass shooters have alluded to pending violence, yet nothing was done. The issue needs to be attacked from both sides.

I'm not fine with banning firearms that look scary. I'm not fine with creating felons out of people who happen to be in a home with firearms if they don't own those firearms, when the owner is not present. I don't believe in making felons of people of who to the range and share a firearm with a friend/family member who doesn't own the firearm and doesn't have a permit. I'm not fine with those circular laws that make it illegal to have a firearm without a permit, but you have to own a firearm and train to get a permit. I'm not fine with arbitrary limits on magazine sizes.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2015 11:11:06 AM

Quote :

"You're thinking of mass murders, which the federal government describes as an event where 4+ people are murdered. There have been 41 mass murders in the country this year. So if that makes us all feel better, we can say we're averaging less than 1 mass murder a week! Hooray"

AMURICA FUK YAH!

#1 in Mass Murders within the Developed World
#1 in per capita pollution
#1 in Fat People
#1 Incarceration Rates per capita in the WHOLE WORLD

12/7/2015 11:58:05 AM

Quote :

"I'm not fine with banning firearms that look scary. I'm not fine with creating felons out of people who happen to be in a home with firearms if they don't own those firearms, when the owner is not present. I don't believe in making felons of people of who to the range and share a firearm with a friend/family member who doesn't own the firearm and doesn't have a permit. I'm not fine with those circular laws that make it illegal to have a firearm without a permit, but you have to own a firearm and train to get a permit. I'm not fine with arbitrary limits on magazine sizes."

This

12/7/2015 2:07:51 PM

I dont know enough about the gun laws to know the answer I assume someone here does. I keep seeing this straw purchase being thrown around which I assume is in reference to that guy buying the guns legally but then giving them to someone else. Under the current law if you buy a weapon legally and then give or sell it to someone else what sort of paperwork or documentation is required? Is that a way people can avoid the whole background check thing?

12/7/2015 2:23:16 PM

I saw Obama's speech about this last night. Why didn't he ever mention planned parenthoof?

12/7/2015 2:23:18 PM

Quote :

"In reality, I don't get the opposition to making changes. People killing people is a problem, and firearms are a major contributor to these killings."

Automobiles are a major contributor to automobile related deaths. Why shouldn't we be implementing common sense automobile bans at the federal level? Isn't it irresponsible to just stand by and do nothing?

12/7/2015 3:17:07 PM

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/gun-advocates-are-right-we-should-compare-guns-to-cars/


[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 3:28 PM. Reason : that tired as fuck comparison...thought we might be able to go a thread without it]

12/7/2015 3:27:30 PM

Sure, those things are a good start, but it's not enough; there are still people dying. There needs to be a complete ban on all automobiles. It's the only way to eliminate all automobile related deaths.

Why do you hate the people dying in car accidents? Why won't you let them live?

12/7/2015 3:36:33 PM

Quote :

"dumbest argument ever"

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 3:38 PM. Reason : that's it folks. close it up.]

12/7/2015 3:37:49 PM

Cars are much worse than guns more ways than one. if there was a way to ban cars overnight then we'd would certainly want to do it. The problem is cars satisfy a necessity that does not have an immediate alternative.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM. Reason : but how will i get food without a gun?]

12/7/2015 3:42:15 PM

Cars weren't designed to kill people, guns are. Next argument.

12/7/2015 3:44:33 PM

Quote :

"Cars weren't designed to kill people, guns are. Next argument."

That's not an argument. Which of these arguments sounds reasonable:

-If X causes deaths that would not occur otherwise, then X should be banned
-The number of deaths per capita caused by X scales linearly with the need to ban X
-If X is designed to kill people, then X should be banned

12/7/2015 3:48:49 PM

I'm more for banning the proliferation of guns than I am about banning ownership of guns.

Ban the sell of guns
Ban the production and importation of guns
Ban commercial maintenance of guns
Institute a gun buy back program where gun owners turn in guns for savings bonds

This is not just good for terrorism and gang/cartel violence but it doesn't really affect people who have a stable way of life that involves gun use.

12/7/2015 3:49:15 PM

It's predicted within 20 years, automobile related deaths will be eliminated by self-driving cars. Some people don't view a ban on non-self driving cars as unreasonable. Cars are also very, very heavy regulated.

Not sure what bearing this has on gun control though. We already have gun control, but there are some obvious problems, that most people agree are problems, but congress refuses to fix largely due to the influence of the gun lobby/NRA.


^ the first 3 of those things can never happen, because of the 2nd amendment. This is a fact of life for America. We can still have sensible gun control laws and simultaneously have gun ownership.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2015 3:49:25 PM

Destroyer you need to get your priorities straight. Cars are bad and we should not be using them. You're totally right. That is just a much more complicated issue to solve. People have to be able to get around for the economy to function. When there is a storm that shuts the roads, entire regions become paralyzed. Our entire nation is built on automobile dependence. I'm not talking about an idea of what "our nation was built on" I'm talking about cities literally being designed with cars in mind.

Sure, we can taper cars out eventually, but guns are something we have already outgrown the absolute need for.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 3:53 PM. Reason : k]

12/7/2015 3:51:55 PM

Quote :

"It's predicted within 20 years, automobile related deaths will be eliminated by self-driving cars."

As long as people are still driving cars this won't happen, people aren't going to all be in self-driving cars in 20 years or a long time, it is a total dream.

Also, let's enforce the gun laws we have, let's give more resources and funding to do this. If you lie on a background check and are caught there is a pretty damn good chance that NOTHING happens. Also, let's increase funding and incentives to keep the databases that background checks are run on up to date. That SC shooter should not have been able to buy a gun and if we had a better process for running background checks he wouldn't. I know he might have been able to elsewhere but if he tried, failed the background check, was arrested and prosecuted, then maybe it would have prevented that shooting.

I know it isn't perfect and there would still need to be more done but if we can't even get this right then throwing more at it isn't going to do jack shit. Also, before you say it, I am not saying that nothing else should be done, what I am saying is before additional laws can have an impact, we have to address the current issues.

12/7/2015 4:00:51 PM

Quote :

"Sure, we can taper cars out eventually, but guns are something we have already outgrown the absolute need for. "

This is not really true, as Bernie Sanders has pointed out. There's very, very large parts of the country where people are in the wild, have to fend off snakes and bears, and it makes sense to shoot animals for food. This is a small part of the population, but they still need guns. Likewise, there's portions of large cities where I wouldn't blame a resident for wanting to own a gun.

Gun control reform generally does nothing to hurt these people who "need" guns, nor should it. But none of these legit users are affected by background checks or permit requirements or even some type of gun registration.

12/7/2015 4:16:08 PM

In NC the application to turn into the Sheriff's office for a pistol purchasing permit is a joke. 3-people sign that say you are a "Nice Law-Abiding Citizen".

12/7/2015 4:20:19 PM

Quote :

"There's very, very large parts of the country where people are in the wild, have to fend off snakes and bears, and it makes sense to shoot animals for food. This is a small part of the population, but they still need guns. "

Guns are not the only way to hunt. Guns do make it easy to overhunt, which is much more of a threat to those who hunt than not having a gun would be.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 4:31 PM. Reason : k]

12/7/2015 4:30:07 PM

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 4:53 PM. Reason : Wrong thread]

12/7/2015 4:35:22 PM

^^ that's true, but in a democratic society, you have to accept that your fellow citizens will adore dumb things sometimes, or have preferences that differ from yours. You have to respect peoples rights, as inane as their desires might seem, no matter what. The solution to over-hunting is to penalize over hunting.

The solution to straw purchases is to have universal background checks.

The solution to guns being used in gang violence is to find the traffickers of these guns (which may require a tracking system for gun sales), and shut them down.

12/7/2015 4:58:55 PM

Quote :

"I saw Obama's speech about this last night. Why didn't he ever mention planned parenthoof?"

Because, as I posted in SB, his speech can be summed up as

Quote :

"Fuck your civil liberties."

Let's take this arbitrary list of people, which at this point is close to 1 million, and say they can't have guns. We can put anybody on that list at anytime, perhaps if we don't like their friends, or maybe some purchases they've made, etc, and then say they can't have guns.

12/7/2015 5:07:04 PM

^ yeah, the no fly list thing is a bad idea, but if it's not good enough to stop people from buying guns, shouldnt we get rid of the list entirely?

Seems like if congress doesn't like Obama's idea, they must get rid of the list or reform it.

12/7/2015 5:11:10 PM

It isn't a no guns list and there isn't any due process. You can be put on those lists for so many reasons:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html (from a non-right wing site)

Hell, there are employees of DHS that are on the terrorist watch list.

12/7/2015 5:23:51 PM

how is not letting someone fly not a violation of civil liberties then?

Quote :

"that's true, but in a democratic society, you have to accept that your fellow citizens will adore dumb things sometimes, or have preferences that differ from yours. You have to respect peoples rights, as inane as their desires might seem, no matter what. The solution to over-hunting is to penalize over hunting"

You forgot the part of democratic society that says your freedoms can't jeopardize my safety. so no its not a "no matter what" type of situation. Also, no one is saying to ban hunting.

Keep in mind, owning a gun, creating your own personal firearms is not what I'm going after. I'm going after the mass production of guns. Proliferation.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM. Reason : help me code]

12/7/2015 5:41:41 PM

Quote :

" Let's take this arbitrary list of people, which at this point is close to 1 million, and say they can't have guns. "

There ain't no million fucking people on the no-fly list

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 5:44 PM. Reason : ^ which amendment is the right to commercial air travel?]

12/7/2015 5:43:41 PM

^ what's stopping them from adding any number of people to the list?

12/7/2015 5:45:29 PM

Absolutely nothing. In fact, the ACLU is suing and winning on a regular basis to get people off of the no fly list.

There's not criteria for being added to it, it's been used several times to punish political enemies, it's a giant clusterfuck.

If you didn't already realize that Obama is one of the worst presidents in history in terms of civil liberties violation this ought to help drive it home.

Also, synapse, freedom of travel/movement is a well established constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law.

Now, you don't have a right to fly commercially, the airlines have a right to refuse you service, the government can tell the airlines that you are dangerous, but if you have a plane they can't really legally ground you or keep you from travelling via plane or helicopter to another state.

[Edited on December 7, 2015 at 5:53 PM. Reason : asdfsd]

12/7/2015 5:48:27 PM

So are you all saying we need to get rid of the no fly list? It was a bad idea when it started, it's a bad idea now, and it's been a bad idea all along?

12/7/2015 5:59:32 PM

It seems like a pretty terrible idea to me. If it is so easy to get on the list and there is no due process that sounds like a pretty broken system. If we have enough evidence that we deem someone too much of a risk to fly on a commercial plane the why are they still in the public at all? It isn't like flying is the only dangerous thing they could do.

12/7/2015 6:03:35 PM

I'm in favor of it, but I don't agree with restricting firearm purchases to people on it.

12/7/2015 6:04:11 PM

Quote :

"So are you all saying we need to get rid of the no fly list? It was a bad idea when it started, it's a bad idea now, and it's been a bad idea all along?"

Yup.

I've never supported legal punishment without due process. The PATRIOT ACT and all it's offshoots have always disgusted me. The way this administration goes after whistleblowers and the media disgusts me. NSA data collection, warrantless wiretaps, secret FISA courts are a huge problem, and on and on.

I'm not going to ally myself with tinfoil hat kooks or extreme anti-government types, but they're right to not trust the government or its motives.

12/7/2015 6:07:57 PM

Quote :

"It seems like a pretty terrible idea to me. If it is so easy to get on the list and there is no due process that sounds like a pretty broken system. If we have enough evidence that we deem someone too much of a risk to fly on a commercial plane the why are they still in the public at all? It isn't like flying is the only dangerous thing they could do."

This is all true. People have been saying this for more than a decade. It's just a little hypocritical that now when it might be used for gun purchases, suddenly Republicans (excepting rjrumfel) are trashing the list on the basis of due process.

Activists, journalists, and vaguely brown or muslims, that have actually be falsely flagged by the list, have been calling for its dismantling forever, only to be ignored.

It's funny how people are fine with an unconstitutional government program, when they don't think they're the targets of it.

12/7/2015 6:23:59 PM

Who says I and others weren't against it before? And dude, that's fucking politics. Politicians will rail against anything when the other side does it and turn around and do the same damn thing. I wrote in Ron Paul the last time I voted so I haven't supported these abuses of liberties and war hawkish politicians.

12/7/2015 6:29:36 PM