Active shooters in San Bernardino, California

[Channel72]

This attack is very, very disturbing from a social and political perspective, because the circumstances involved reach out and pull in so many disparate issues: gun control, immigration, surveillance, foreign policy, etc.

And the damning thing which makes this incident so disturbing, is that unlike the Paris attackers who lived in Muslim ghettos and had regular contact with foreign jihadists, these two were basically American middle-class suburbanites with a steady 50K+ salary and a 6 month old daughter. This incident plays right into the worst fears and biases of xenophobes moreso than any foreign-initiated attack possibly could - mustering up "pod-people" type paranoia within American communities. The message a lot of Americans are going to take away from this incident is "we need to be more distrusting of Muslims, we need to enact laws which specifically target and restrict Muslims, etc."

Plus, there's no real obvious solution. Bomb Syria some more? Doesn't matter... these people didn't get any help from Syria. More gun control? I'm all for that, but that does nothing to curtail radical Islam.

I also think this case has a lot more in common with something like Columbine or Sandy Hook than people realize. This guy Farook was probably an introvert - disturbed, socially isolated, and he never really fit in with American workplace culture. (Nobody really fits in with American workplace culture, anyway...) Radical Islam served as a conduit for him to channel all his feelings of alienation and anger. The Columbine shooters didn't have a convenient religious template to use, so they simply adopted nihilism.

Of course, it's a strong possibility this wouldn't have happened if Farook didn't have a wider "support network" over the Internet and elsewhere of like-minded people encouraging his radicalization... but as far as we know he didn't receive any material support or funding. He purchased everything himself, which makes this something of a gun control issue - except he was a perfectly model citizen so under current laws there was no reason to deny him the sale of firearms.

There's definitely no great answer. All I can say is that it would be in the interest of the American Muslim community to start dumping a lot of money into PR right now, disassociating themselves from radical Islam.

Here's a quote from some Random American Citizen, (quoted from Al Jazeera news):

Some American woman wrote:

In any case, “it’s scary,” said Cheri Greth, who lives in the San Bernardino suburb of Grand Terrace. “First, I couldn’t believe anything like this could happen close by,” she said. “Then I thought it was terrorism the minute they said their names. I think she (Malik) was the one who radicalized him.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... rdino.html

And I won't lie. I basically "knew" this was terrorism (or probably "lone-wolf terrorism") as soon as I heard "Farooq" - a common Arabic name. And really, this is the reaction most Americans are going to have, realistically. This fucking idiot Farooq probably did way more damage to the Muslim community within the US than any kind of "+1" he scored in the name of Jihad.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

The only solution right now, as I see it, is to listen to people like Maajid Nawaz. He's been in the trenches and knows exactly what goes on in these people's heads. We Westerners are so entrenched in 2,000 years of the European-Christian geopolitical worldview, and further lulled into complacency by not having any truly serious conflict for 70 years that we're just not (yet) fully adjusted to deal with Islamism as a threat. The left is baffled by the idea that Islamic terrorists can be and are produced (in part) by a religion, and the right is (perpetually) baffled by the idea that Muslims are human beings like everybody else. Meanwhile the centrists continue fence-sitting while this terrorism occurs underneath them (I'm looking at you, Obama).

Please, for the love of god, more people need to listen to Maajid Nawaz. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but if not:

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This fucking idiot Farooq probably did way more damage to the Muslim community within the US than any kind of "+1" he scored in the name of Jihad.

I realize it's only 2015, but I'm ready to call this the understatement of the century.

[salm]

The left is baffled by the idea that Islamic terrorists can be and are produced (in part) by a religion, and the right is (perpetually) baffled by

I don´t know anybody who is baffled by the idea that religion can produce terrorists. Who are these baffled people and how does this bafflement show?

[Wild Zontargs]

I don´t know anybody who is baffled by the idea that religion can produce terrorists. Who are these baffled people and how does this bafflement show?

How about Hillary "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism" Clinton?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I don´t know anybody who is baffled by the idea that religion can produce terrorists. Who are these baffled people and how does this bafflement show?

There is a significant portion of the left, in the US and Britain (maybe elsewhere too), that insists upon bending over backward to coddle Islam, shield it from criticism, and loudly declare that terrorists, ISIS, etc have nothing to do with Islam.

In the most recent example, Goldsmiths College's feminist (and LGBT, not mentioned in the blog I linked to) student societies have jumped in bed with Islamist agitators in the name of defending a minority culture, regardless of that minority culture's aggressively backward views. And this isn't an isolated incident, it's a worrying trend that's been picking up steam over the last several months at the very least. The left has become increasingly blind to its own stated values of secular human rights - while it's admirable to want to stick up for Muslims or other minorities, far too many people on the left are doing it without first checking to see if they're the sort of people who should be defended. The fact that one party in a dispute is an occasionally-persecuted minority is overriding the fact that that minority often manifests reprehensible and dangerous political views.

Not that all Muslims have reprehensible views, mind, lest the SDN Shitpost Squadron jump down my throat, but some very clearly do, and it's that fact that Western, liberalized societies who haven't fought a real war for 70 years are having trouble with.

[salm]

I don´t know anybody who is baffled by the idea that religion can produce terrorists. Who are these baffled people and how does this bafflement show?

How about Hillary "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism" Clinton?

You mean this twitter post means that she is completely unaware of the fact that religious terrorists exist?

[salm]

There is a significant portion of the left, in the US and Britain (maybe elsewhere too), that insists upon bending over backward to coddle Islam, shield it from criticism, and loudly declare that terrorists, ISIS, etc have nothing to do with Islam.

In the most recent example, Goldsmiths College's feminist (and LGBT, not mentioned in the blog I linked to) student societies have jumped in bed with Islamist agitators in the name of defending a minority culture, regardless of that minority culture's aggressively backward views. And this isn't an isolated incident, it's a worrying trend that's been picking up steam over the last several months at the very least. The left has become increasingly blind to its own stated values of secular human rights - while it's admirable to want to stick up for Muslims or other minorities, far too many people on the left are doing it without first checking to see if they're the sort of people who should be defended. The fact that one party in a dispute is an occasionally-persecuted minority is overriding the fact that that minority often manifests reprehensible and dangerous political views.

Not that all Muslims have reprehensible views, mind, lest the SDN Shitpost Squadron jump down my throat, but some very clearly do, and it's that fact that Western, liberalized societies who haven't fought a real war for 70 years are having trouble with.

Ah, so when you said "the left" you actually meant a couple of dumb asses.

It is possible to defend and critisize one thing at the same time. This is not a matter of Islam = good or bad but a more complex matter.
On the one hand you´d expect a western liberal to be rather critical of religion in general, esspecially about Islam and Christianity.
On the other hand Muslims are a minority who need to be protected from bad types of critisizm/hatred/discrimination because they´re in a pretty week position in a predominantly christian/atheist country.
So it is entirely possible to say that Islam has the bad properties X,Y and Z and at the same time say that we shouldn´t treat muslims worse in general. And I think that "The Left" is more about the protecting minorities part than about giving muslims a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want because lol t0ler4nce!!!11.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Isn't that what I just said?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There is a significant portion of the left, in the US and Britain (maybe elsewhere too), that insists upon bending over backward to coddle Islam, shield it from criticism, and loudly declare that terrorists, ISIS, etc have nothing to do with Islam.

In the most recent example, Goldsmiths College's feminist (and LGBT, not mentioned in the blog I linked to) student societies have jumped in bed with Islamist agitators in the name of defending a minority culture, regardless of that minority culture's aggressively backward views. And this isn't an isolated incident, it's a worrying trend that's been picking up steam over the last several months at the very least. The left has become increasingly blind to its own stated values of secular human rights - while it's admirable to want to stick up for Muslims or other minorities, far too many people on the left are doing it without first checking to see if they're the sort of people who should be defended. The fact that one party in a dispute is an occasionally-persecuted minority is overriding the fact that that minority often manifests reprehensible and dangerous political views.

Not that all Muslims have reprehensible views, mind, lest the SDN Shitpost Squadron jump down my throat, but some very clearly do, and it's that fact that Western, liberalized societies who haven't fought a real war for 70 years are having trouble with.

So what? A comparatively large percentage of black males have hateful views toward homosexuality. Does that make it OK to discriminate against them?

The student societies are defending the right of all US residents not to be discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity, not endorsing every view held by a minority of that group's members (even if that minority is larger than other US ethnic groups). By the way, if we're going to single out a demographic for propensity to commit mass shootings and acts of terrorism in this country, it's white Christian conservatives by a landslide.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

So what? A comparatively large percentage of black males have hateful views toward homosexuality. Does that make it OK to discriminate against them?

Of course not, and that's not what I or anyone else here is advocating for. There's a difference between discriminating against people and criticizing ideas. Islam is an idea, Islamism is a particularly bad idea, and Muslims (by definition) subscribe to the former, and some subscribe to the latter. That means they're fair game for criticism.

The student societies are defending the right of all US residents not to be discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity, not endorsing every view held by a minority of that group's members (even if that minority is larger than other US ethnic groups). By the way, if we're going to single out a demographic for propensity to commit mass shootings and acts of terrorism in this country, it's white Christian conservatives by a landslide.

No, they're not. Goldsmiths' Islamic Society objected to Maryam Namazie's invitation to give a lecture at the college and demanded her speech be banned on account of being offensive to Muslims. The college's feminist and LGBT societies sided quite firmly with the Islamic Society in this stance. When the invited speaker is objected to on the grounds that it is a dissenting view (Namazie, an ex-Muslim, has a dissenting view on Islam), and you support the objector's desire to ban that speaker, that is tacit endorsement of the objector's views.

It's an incredibly warped phenomenon, and it's depressing to watch.

[Broomstick]

As to weather their was an ideological agenda behind this... I'm not jumping to that conclusion, because while prejudice against the disabled is certainly a real thing, I've never heard of anyone engaging in terrorism over it before, unlike race, gender, religion...

No, mass murder of the disabled has generally been an institutional thing, often disguised under the word “mercy” or some such.

Out on the internets, people are making such outlandish speculations like an ISIS attack (they'd have claimed responsibility by now. Also, the modus operandi is all wrong for an ISIS attack ... the attackers don't appear to have blown themselves up, and ISIS would've gone for something with much greater physical and symbolic impact, like they did in Paris,) or race or right-wing terrorists (the location of the shooting is just too weird for either one of those.)

...and sitting here a few days later while it wasn't “official” ISIS it was apparently two “lone wolf” ISIS sympathizers.

Maybe I'm guilty of stereotyping a bit here, but it seems to me that just the fact that one of the shooters was female makes this rather atypical for a mass shooting. As does the presence of multiple shooters.

Atypical but not unkown.

For whatever it's worth, conservative gun nuts have identified the gun used as an AK-74. They say that those are not common or easy to legally obtain [EDIT: that part is apparently wrong] in the US. I personally have no knowledge of the subject.

As noted, full-auto AK-47's are essentially illegal for civilians in the US. Semi-autos, though, are easy enough to obtain. I've fired one on loan from a friend, I know several people who own one.

So how many mass shootings is that in the US this year? Some sites claim it's more than one a day, and I tend to agree with them. Then again, the last time I brought that up I was told that some of them don't count because they were gang on gang violence; as if gang members are somehow less worthy of life than the rest of society. Still, unless somebody can post a better source, I'm going to use the numbers provided by shootingtracker.

According to these numbers, there have been 351 shootings as of 11/27/2015. 351 events where I can probably find more news about the shooter than the victims; though frankly the shooter is often a victim as well. These shootings have killed 454 people and wounded 1,281 more. That's three or four Paris attacks per year. Nothing seriously done about any of this.

Nothing is seriously done because they don't all die in the same place on the same day, so it gets lost in the hum of other news.

And yes, some of them are gang-on-gang which some would rather ignore because the poor and/or criminal are not valued by some, but you're right, they're just as much mass killings as any other mass killing.

I'd go with the FBI stats, though, and not the shootingtracker site. They have a LOT of stats, so you may need to do some digging. The CDC also tracks gun injuries and deaths as part of public health.

As for pellet guns not counting, that's bullshit. They make airguns capable of downing deer. Even paintball guns can maim or kill very easily.

True, however, almost all pellet gun deaths are accidents and of those that aren't they're mostly suicides. Overall, airgun deaths are rare compared to non-airgun guns (is there a more concise term for that?)

Sitting here at some days remove from the initial events, I think it was the "disgruntled worker" vibe that kept the media from jumping instantly to terrorism. In fact, I think this was both jihadist and disgruntled worker.

Was it just me, or did anyone else think "Bonnie and Clyde" when they saw the media shots of the bullet-riddled SUV?

Tangent: if they were alive and rampaging today, would Bonnie and Clyde be considered terrorists or "just" bank robbers?

[Executor32]

Overall, airgun deaths are rare compared to non-airgun guns (is there a more concise term for that?)

Firearms?

[Lonestar]

Overall, airgun deaths are rare compared to non-airgun guns (is there a more concise term for that?)

Firearms?

Airguns don't have gunpowder in them. They aren't firearms.

[Elheru Aran]

Overall, airgun deaths are rare compared to non-airgun guns (is there a more concise term for that?)

Firearms?

Airguns don't have gunpowder in them. They aren't firearms.

He's saying that "non-airgun guns" are "firearms", which is generally true (barring exotic stuff like railguns and whatnot).

[Lonestar]

Whoops. Sheeeeet. As I was.

[Patroklos]

By the way, if we're going to single out a demographic for propensity to commit mass shootings and acts of terrorism in this country, it's white Christian conservatives by a landslide.

ORLY? Please continue. With a source.

[Tanasinn]

Make sure to include evidence that they did it in the name of Christianity, too.

[Adam Reynolds]

Please, for the love of god, more people need to listen to Maajid Nawaz. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but if not:

I found it interesting that he actually wrote a book with Sam Harris, who has been incredibly critical of Islam.

[Broomstick]

By the way, if we're going to single out a demographic for propensity to commit mass shootings and acts of terrorism in this country, it's white Christian conservatives by a landslide.

ORLY? Please continue. With a source.

It would probably be more accurate to say "politically and/or socially conservative white men of Christian background".

[Grumman]

It would probably be more accurate to say "politically and/or socially conservative white men of Christian background".

It would be even more accurate to say he's full of shit, because Republicans outnumber Muslims 10 to 1 but Islamic terrorism still kills more people than right-wing terrorism.

[The Romulan Republic]

This fucking idiot Farooq probably did way more damage to the Muslim community within the US than any kind of "+1" he scored in the name of Jihad.

I realize it's only 2015, but I'm ready to call this the understatement of the century.

At least Obama is reminding people not to attack all Muslims (did anyone else here watch his speech yesterday?).

But of course, IS doesn't give a damn about how much it hurts Muslims. Hell, it might be a bonus to them. Because any Muslim who's not part of their apocalyptic cult is as much an enemy of their's as us infidels.

[Broomstick]

It would probably be more accurate to say "politically and/or socially conservative white men of Christian background".

It would be even more accurate to say he's full of shit, because Republicans outnumber Muslims 10 to 1 but Islamic terrorism still kills more people than right-wing terrorism.

In the US that was only true until 2001. Prior to that it was mostly home-grown white men. The fact that there is now an international form of terrorism that has also managed attacks in the US does not mean the prior threat has gone away.

[salm]

Isn't that what I just said?

I don´t know. To me it seems that the amount of people who "coddle islam" isn´t that significant.
I think a lot of people misinterpret being interested in minority protection with "cuddling without questoining", though.

[Patroklos]

By the way, if we're going to single out a demographic for propensity to commit mass shootings and acts of terrorism in this country, it's white Christian conservatives by a landslide.

ORLY? Please continue. With a source.

It would probably be more accurate to say "politically and/or socially conservative white men of Christian background".

Probably not, and obviously so, but he can provide a source for that moved goal if he so wishes.

l 2001. Prior to that it was mostly home-grown white men. The fact that there is now an international form of terrorism that has also managed attacks in the US does not mean the prior threat has gone away.

Maybe, there were things like the World Trade Center bombings for instance. But again you need to adjust that for population representation and there were far fewer Muslims in 1993 (the WTC bombing) than there are now.

Here is a short and incomplete of list of terror attacks in the 90s just as an example and there are plenty of non white, non Christians in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... ates#1990s