Multiple Victims Reported Shot In San Bernardino

[ingemann]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

How so? The whole ISIS did it theory is not holding water and the target of the shooter suggests this was more about an issue at work than anything else.

The shooters' names were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Any other details are irrelevant.

Names are not my point, what I was saying is that the assertion that this was an ISIS attack is unfounded at this point. I'm not going to argue about it, so we will agree to disagree before this gets out of control.

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

Nobody won this shooting. But if you're talking about the debate, yes the Right won, but they didn't win it because they were Muslims, or because whether they were radicalised or not, or whether it was work place violence (I'm sure a lot of people have homemade bombs lying in the basement, they can use in a moment of rage).

No the reason they won the debate here on uselectionatlas, was because the "Left" (I personal do not find being pro-gun control to be left, I just find it sane) took the low road from the start, only to find their point undercut by the fact that this wasn't a WASP gun nut, of course you people haven't helped by keep digging, the moral high point is lost, and the smart thing to do would be to let the other side talk until someone said something disgusting enough, that you could hope to take the moral high ground again, but instead you keep digging and digging.

When the last Paris terror attack happened, I was shocked and was 90+% sure Muslim terrorist was behind it, but I didn't start moronic attacks on Muslims, instead I suggested we waited with that discussion, until there was more facts on the ground (post below), because I remembered Breivik.

There's little to say by this point other than we can only hope it's over, and let's wait until we have more clear details to discuss who have done it.

So RIP to the victims and my thoughts goes out to their families.

[publicunofficial]

NBC is doing a Geraldo Rivera style "Break into the shooter's house and rummage through his stuff" live report. It's amazingly gross.

[Sbane]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

Farook had recently gotten into an argument with his coworker Nicholas Thalasinos about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Thalasinos was killed in the attack on Wednesday...

He sure showed him

That is pretty funny in a morbid way.

This shooting is starting to make sense now. I wonder if they were supposed to attack another target but in a fit of rage shot up this office party first. In which case I wonder what the target was.

[Sbane]

Is this now the watershed "homegrown Islamic terrorist" incident?

Probably. Not that this is any worse than terrorism inspired by white supremacist ideology but everyone is going to care way more about this. Hmm I wonder why.

[MisSkeptic]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

Farook had recently gotten into an argument with his coworker Nicholas Thalasinos about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Thalasinos was killed in the attack on Wednesday...

He sure showed him

That is pretty funny in a morbid way.

This shooting is starting to make sense now. I wonder if they were supposed to attack another target but in a fit of rage shot up this office party first. In which case I wonder what the target was.

That's a good question. Where there any popular designations or government buildings nearby the crime scene?

[ilikeverin]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

Farook had recently gotten into an argument with his coworker Nicholas Thalasinos about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Thalasinos was killed in the attack on Wednesday...

He sure showed him

That is pretty funny in a morbid way.

This shooting is starting to make sense now. I wonder if they were supposed to attack another target but in a fit of rage shot up this office party first. In which case I wonder what the target was.

Here's an idea: the two participated in the same act for different reasons - she was just "out for jihad" (or whatever) in whatever form it took, while he was looking to kill coworkers, and so they came to a middle ground.

[Joe Republic]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

I know, me too, but you'll get used to it.

Excellent point, as usual.  Oh well, see you at the next mass shooting thread!  Remember to bring your best talking points with you next time.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nobody won this shooting. But if you're talking about the debate, yes the Right won, but they didn't win it because they were Muslims, or because whether they were radicalised or not, or whether it was work place violence (I'm sure a lot of people have homemade bombs lying in the basement, they can use in a moment of rage).

No the reason they won the debate here on uselectionatlas, was because the "Left" (I personal do not find being pro-gun control to be left, I just find it sane) took the low road from the start, only to find their point undercut by the fact that this wasn't a WASP gun nut, of course you people haven't helped by keep digging, the moral high point is lost, and the smart thing to do would be to let the other side talk until someone said something disgusting enough, that you could hope to take the moral high ground again, but instead you keep digging and digging.

When the last Paris terror attack happened, I was shocked and was 90+% sure Muslim terrorist was behind it, but I didn't start moronic attacks on Muslims, instead I suggested we waited with that discussion, until there was more facts on the ground (post below), because I remembered Breivik.

Very well said. There are evil terrorists of all ideologies and colors. Whenever any side jumps to stupid conclusions for political reasons, they cheapen the actual tragedy.

[Joe Republic]

The tragedies are already pretty cheap though.  They happen every day.

[dead0man]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

I know, me too, but you'll get used to it.

Excellent point, as usual.  Oh well, see you at the next mass shooting thread!  Remember to bring your best talking points with you next time.

We know you will.  Try better jokes next time though, this current set is getting a little tired.

[Joe Republic]

As I've told you each and every time you failed to get it before, the 'jokes' (I'm flattered you could even call them that) wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have this ludicrous stalemate in the first place.  But here we are.  Your side won't give an inch; another shooting will occur in the next few days; what else is left but to see the macabre humor in it?

[dead0man]

My side has won, why should we give an inch?  More people can own guns, more people can carry guns and crime is down.  Plus, this is an easy issue to debate.  Your side is all emotion and doesn't really understand the topic.  It makes it frustrating sometimes, sure, but easy.

And most of us on this side are willing to give an inch.  I believe most of us are not against 100% background checks.  Most of us want to make sure crazy Bob can't get a Glock at the next gun show.  I know the gun control nuts want to get rid of guns even on days where a mass shooting doesn't happen (and they are not happening "exponentially more often", I've been meaning to make fun of you for that...seriously, you said "exponentially"....wtf?), but you guys generally only want to talk about it after one.  Again, emotion.

[Joe Republic]

My side has won, why should we give an inch?

BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE MASS SHOOTINGS BY CRAZY PEOPLE KEEP HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY FEW DAYS.  THAT'S WHAT YOUR SIDE "WINNING" MEANS.

Sorry, did I get a little too emotional for you?  That tends to happen when humans have to explain basic things to brick walls.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Both sides are purely based on emotion of course. Occasionally a few facts will be squeezed out, which - oh so conveniently - will match the speaker's pre-existing and emotional reaction to the idea of gun control. And there's nothing explicitly wrong with basing the foundation of an argument in emotion. (Indeed if anybody claims their political views aren't based around emotion I am immediately inclined to think they are a moron who doesn't understand their own brain)

I guess we have to work out which is a more pertinent emotional reaction: to feel disgust at the idea of so many innocents meeting wholly unnessessary deaths (which motivates gun controllers); or the opposing emotional reaction of viewing firearms as an integral aspect of your national and personal identity (which I understand is the key emotional argument from gun rights people).

Of course I suffer from a cultural divide, but I'm well versed in the politics of 'national identity' and its association with symbols (I.e. ulster - guns function in a similar psychological fashion as flegs do to an Orangeman).

[dead0man]

I guess we have to work out which is a more pertinent emotional reaction: to feel disgust at the idea of so many innocents meeting wholly unnessessary deaths (which motivates gun controllers); or the opposing emotional reaction of viewing firearms as an integral aspect of your national and personal identity (which I understand is the key emotional argument from gun rights people).

I still don't own a gun, haven't fired one in like 16 years.  They are not an integral part of my personal or national identity. 

My side has won, why should we give an inch?

BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE MASS SHOOTINGS BY CRAZY PEOPLE KEEP HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY FEW DAYS.

exponentially even!

[SteveRogers]

My side has won, why should we give an inch?  More people can own guns, more people can carry guns and crime is down.  Plus, this is an easy issue to debate.  Your side is all emotion and doesn't really understand the topic.  It makes it frustrating sometimes, sure, but easy.

And most of us on this side are willing to give an inch.  I believe most of us are not against 100% background checks.  Most of us want to make sure crazy Bob can't get a Glock at the next gun show.  I know the gun control nuts want to get rid of guns even on days where a mass shooting doesn't happen (and they are not happening "exponentially more often", I've been meaning to make fun of you for that...seriously, you said "exponentially"....wtf?), but you guys generally only want to talk about it after one.  Again, emotion.

Except you know good and well that congressional Republicans will draw a line in the sand on both of those extremely moderate reform proposals.

[Joe Republic]

My side has won, why should we give an inch?

BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE MASS SHOOTINGS BY CRAZY PEOPLE KEEP HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY FEW DAYS.

exponentially even!

The fact that you took a hyperbolic response to a troll literally tells me what caliber of intelligence I'm dealing with here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My side has won, why should we give an inch?

BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE MASS SHOOTINGS BY CRAZY PEOPLE KEEP HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY FEW DAYS.

exponentially even!

The fact that you took a hyperbolic response to a troll literally tells me what caliber of intelligence I'm dealing with here.

.22?

[Joe Republic]

Please leave the witty interjections to Morden, Ernest.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Please leave the witty interjections to Morden, Ernest.

Shots fired.

[ingemann]

The tragic-comical part with dead0man's sides victory, because they won here on atlas, was that the victory was given to them. I still don't get why the gun control side (okay I do, but it do not paint a flattering picture of that side), could mess up a terror attack where the terrorists attack primarily with weapons they had gotten legal. If you look at these terrorist and compare them with their European counterparts, you will see they was different, in Europe terrorist are usual connected with the criminal underworld, and that's not accidental, because if some average Muslim with no criminal record want a weapon in Europe, it's much harder to get, while criminals have the connections. So these kind of terrorists are usual discovered in Europe (Breivik being the great exceptions). But in USA these people don't need to have connections to the criminal underworld.