At least 14 people have been killed in a mass shooting at a center for people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino, involving multiple shooters in combat gear and using assault weapons. Police say that two suspects have been killed, one man, one woman; a third suspect has been detained. As I write this it’s not clear who the attackers were, what motivated them.
Please post any relevant information you find in the comments below.
See here for ongoing coverage.
“The unspoken conclusion is that an armed individual is protected from the government; but it hand-waves away the preponderance of the evidence, which is that in this country you don’t shoot a cop and live to tell about it.”
Yeah the gun lovin’ folks never quite explain how carrying is supposed to protect us from the government. So how exactly would brandishing a gun have helped this woman and her child?
I don’t have anything to do with drones flying in other countries, I have never been a government official making decisions to bomb, invade, or economically sanction the citizens of another country. However, in my home my firearm is something I know that I only have the right to respond with use of force commensurate to the seriousness of the threat….if my life is not in immediate and absolute peril I don’t get to shoot an intruder in the head without facing a potential murder charge. If I chase an intruder out of my home who has not acted in a violent manner towards me but is instead fleeing the premises and shoot them with the intent to kill or maim I can expect to face criminal charges. My weapon is not the size for concealment, its purpose is to protect my life, the lives of anyone I’ve willingly invited into my home, and my property. It doesn’t mean I’m any safer than a neighbor who is unarmed, and I still must regularly practice loading, using and keeping it in the proper condition. But should someone break in and become a threat it’s there and may make all the difference between my life ending or not.
Our country contains the people of many other nations, how can our government not hear the cries to help those who have – for whatever reason – remained behind in places beyond our borders? To share the wealth and encourage wealth building in other countries? Humans have always had a violent side, and the brains to create all sorts of methods to commit violence against each other. We shouldn’t make that the only thing that ties our whole-world civilization together.
On second thought, the first paragraph is probably intended to establish Nazrala’s bona fides by listing a whole bunch of left-wing talking points from wherever they live (not the US, judging by their use of “your president”), which unfortunately includes paranoia about how Turkey won’t say boo to a goose without Obama’s say-so.
Then the second para is the usual tired pro-gun talking points.
It’s like a mullet.
Well, to be fair, I wouldn’t say boo to a goose either. In fact, I recommend avoiding geese in general, fuckers have a very short temper and a very nasty bite!
(No, I don’t have anything on topic to say, but seeing as I’ve been bitten by far too many things, thought I’d weigh in on geese)
I actually have four Emden geese, the big white ones. And while they are chummy with me, the kids and my wife they are awfully unpleasent to everyone/thing else besides the chickens. They’ve even driven the cats from the barn.
Better then a dog for a watch animal, people don’t know how to take a 25lb obnoxious bird.
Here’s a good reason why: The fuckers have teeth on their tongues.
The eyes of the Devil. o.o
We here at Falconer Industries, LLC do not condone or encourage any behavior that is likely to lead to drawing aggro from large waterfowl.
And I thought the extremely persistent about getting food and attention group of ducks living in the ponds in the community I reside in were bad. They’ve learned to knock on patio doors with their beaks, and if one or two don’t get your attention, you soon have six or more there knocking. We had someone dump a goose off one year, looked like it had had an individual try to pluck large areas of feathers off it – a mama duck took the poor thing under her wing after realizing the goose was willing to sit on her eggs for her, and babysit the ducklings without trying to kill them after they hatched.
Later some stupid jerkface decided that ducks were enough, and the goose was removed. They’d get rid of the ducks too if they weren’t prevented from it by municipal codes enforced by the area department of animal care and control.
I live in a state where, if an intruder who invades your home is a stranger, it is perfectly legal to kill him (or her). It has to be a stranger, not a domestic or neighbor dispute, and they have to not be fleeing, but if you have an intruder you are allowed to assume that they mean you and yours deadly harm, and you may blow them away without further concern. When enacted, this was called the “Make My Day” law.
BTW, the United States already gives out more aid, more jobs, more work visas, and more local wealth-building assistance than all other countries combined. We let in more immigrants than all other countries combined. And this has been the case since the end of WWII. The presence of the shooters in our country, living as middle class people, is one example of that. Some of the people they shot had given them a baby shower.
PI — three hours of supposedly true horror stories and not true creepy pasta and that tongue is the real nightmare fuel!
@Virtually Out of Touch
The Godboldo story is terrifying.
If Maryanne Godboldo had been a rich white woman with access to alternative doctors, you can bet everything you’ve got that this wouldn’t have happened.
And of course if she had brandished a gun, she might well be dead. Then her daughter would have no mother and be forced to take a drug that made her violent.
Is this really true? It’s certainly not true per capita, right? According to a Forbes article from 2012, even in absolute numbers the next two countries on the list (Germany and Spain) had a larger combined immigrant inflow than the US.
@dhag
Like all Americans who are not Native Americans, my ancestors, not so long ago, were immigrants. So I take this whole controversy about immigration personally.
My understanding is that the story of US unparalleled generosity to immigrants is a myth. It’s certainly not true for those immigrants without papers who slip across the border from Mexico, hoping to find work as farmworkers, nannies, house cleaners, roofers, or dishwashers. They are hunted and hounded by the border patrol. Some die in the desert heat. All because they want to feed their families, something that the North American Free Trade Agreement makes difficult.
And Wikipedia agrees with your per capita argument:
@Kat
Thanks.
I found it interesting that apart from per capita calculations, from what I can see, the statement “more immigrants than the rest of the world combined” is also not remotely true.
—
In other news, our Sweden Democrat Party is literally doxxing refugee shelters through official channels, while proposing that permanent residence permits be revoked. Permanent! Do words mean things anymore?
@dhag
Good point! I had forgotten that this argument (the United States takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined) had been made.
It’s just not true.
I’m off to bed now.
Numerically more immigrants, definitely, and numbers are what this is about. Most other countries throw up a lot more barriers than we do. While the shooter was born here, his parents weren’t, nor was his bride. I do not buy arguments that we, as a nation, have been cruel or stingy towards immigrants. Right now I live in a neighborhood that was once white working class. It’s now Hispanic working class and mean recent immigrants. Back in the ‘aughts I lived in a neighborhood where many people from Africa were coming in. Not American Black people, Somalis and Ethiopians. There were also Marshall Islanders, Asians, and all sorts of others. The neighborhoods were not contentious, we all get along and there are no riots or racial incidents, we’re all just working folks.
@scarlettpipstrelle
There’s a huge difference between “numerically more than the next country on the list” and “numerically more than the rest of the world combined”. And I also don’t agree that the absolute numbers are more significant than the per capita numbers.
Let’s not fool ourselves: the state of states is the state of nature. To some degree it is Hobbesian and to some degree it is Lockean, but every state operates in a state of nature with respect to other states.
The US does a lot of things worth criticizing, but any state that found herself in the same position as the US (having no other state that can coerce her into doing something she doesn’t want to do, or not doing something she wants to do) would behave in a similar way. You can see it easily on local scales, and throughout history.
Yeah, I have to disagree with your disagreement. If a country with a population of 100 accepts 1 immigrant, and the US with a population of 300 million accepts 1 million, the US has done 1 million times more absolute good for migrants, even though she is 1/3rd as generous per capita.
@PoM
That was not actually a disagreement with my disagreement.
I guess I’ll expand on that previous comment.
We agree that 1 million is a larger number than 1. This has not been questioned.
I just don’t believe it’s useful in reality to compare absolute population flow between countries of such varying sizes. When you say the US has done one million times more good than some fictional country with a population of 100, you really haven’t said much of anything other than “the USA is a large country”. Again, this has not been questioned. We agree that the US is larger than Germany.
We can just as well say the European Union as a whole has done “more absolute good”, but these are word games. In reality, what difference do we make by arbitrarily changing the scope? None, in my view.
…If I never hear another person who doesn’t live in California, never has lived in California, and may not even reside in the United States go on about what it’s like in California, what the people in California do and act like (especially if they’ve not once in their whole lives met someone from California…which is the case more than one would think!) in a variety of situations, before concluding with a call for “the big one” (earthquake) to come and cause California to break off from the rest of the continental United States, then sink to the depths of the Pacific Ocean with all her residents – usually because we’re all a bunch of left-wing fruits and nuts led by hippies and ‘ill-E-GUHls’ who deserve the wrathful judgment of religious conserv- I mean ‘God’ – I think I could die happy.
Yes, it’s sort of O/T, and I should quit clicking on ‘news’ articles on certain subjects because I know what awaits within their poisonous comment-communities, but DAMN there are so many who don’t seem to have a grasp of the basics let alone realize that the state of California is geologically NEVER going to become an island or break off and sink…at least not according to the current prediction models on tectonic movements. That and I’m sick of people telling me what it’s like here and complaining about life here when they’re NOT HERE nor have they ever been!
I was sitting in Civics class on the date and time that Cali was supposed to break off and fall into the ocean. We still had to sit through class and turn in our homework.
What I’m saying is that it is. The 999,999 people who are unable to get into Fictional Small Country because it is small are not going to be comforted by the fact that, per captia, Fictional Small Country is extremely generous. If they can’t get out of their current, undesirable and possibly very dangerous situation, the relative generosity of Fictional Small Country versus the relative generosity of the United States is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute, in raw numbers, generosity of the United States (or any other very large state). What matters is whether or not Given Immigrant #947,821 is able to get into a better situation.
@PoM
Yes, and the way we make sure this given immigrant can indeed get into a better situation is by expecting countries to do their fair share in terms of per capita, not in absolute numbers. You’re gonna sit around hoping that Liechenstein will agree to double their population every year? I’m not. This is why I specified I’m talking about reality.
I’m trying to figure out why you’re making the obvious point that accepting more immigrants is better for immigrants than accepting fewer. Has anybody argued the opposite? Because if not, that’s the definition of a strawperson.
My problem is this: In reality we have the USA as one nation with a population of, what, 320 million? Let’s say this specific country has an inflow of 1 million immigrants yearly. If instead we had four different countries where the USA is now, with a population of 80 million each, and they still have a combined inflow of 1 million immigrants yearly, what difference does this scenario make as compared to reality? None! But you would say these 4 countries are now doing less good than the 1 country in the other scenario, even though there’s literally no difference.
This is why it makes zero sense focusing on absolute numbers. Presumably, Given Immigrant #947,821 doesn’t give a shit about where exactly the arbitrary national borders are drawn. What matters is how many immigrants the world can help as a whole. A huge country like the US accepting fewer immigrants per capita than other countries is actually doing the opposite of helping.