But this string is about the San Bernardino Shooting which is clearly an act of gun violence.

Your quoting alcohol deaths is just an attempt to deflect

No, it's an act of MINDS exercising their thirst for death, butchery, and bloodbath, and for the sick thrills.

The guns, butcher knives, pipe bombs, crucifixion cross wood and nails, machetes, etc. are tools that do not function without a human, evil mind working the hands to execute the satanic acts.

Excellent point goodtimesintv.

That's good, though I doubt those that have such an aversion to guns will ever go :loco: and post those signs on their homes. Those opposed to the 2nd amendment are the ones I referred to in a post of mine as a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for their life if the unthinkable ever happens to them.

I applaud what Sheriff Ivey in Brevard Co. is calling for - citizens that are "legal" (with their CCL), to become proficient with their weapons and stop this s**t that is going on.

This thread is about an act of terrorism!!!

The radical islamist terrorists used both guns and bombs to carry out their vows to kill the infidels!!

-----------------------
So, when 'infadels heads are cut off (including Americans) - do you consider that "Knife violence"?
Hit and run= "Vehicle Violence"?
Drowning = "Water Violence"?
Choking = Chicken bone violence?
Holocaust = Gas violence?

I could go on - but you get the message.
In other words ---- THE resultant MESSAGE and ISSUE is the most important.

Like a 13 minute Oval Office speech where 1/2+ of the content was Political = guns and perceived Muslim 'protection'. As Rahm Emanuel stated during his tenure at the White House-Chief of Staff - "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." And his old boss - ALWAYS follows that rule.

Sorry for the Left turn - but applies to the topic on this post.

I agree and those who don't want to talk about the very serious issue keep changing the subject to Guns.


Cologal....What do you think about Islamic terrorists and do you think any of this country are in danger? If so how much? If so what should be done? Other than talk about guns?


We are all on board with truth, justice and the American way. We are not on board with being afraid of people with or without guns who are somewhere in a room right now in THIS country plotting to kill us because we don't espouse their religion and/or because people who they agree with are being bombed in the Mideast.


To remind you Cologal. I don't have a gun. No guns in our home. But I may change my mind.

You have unwittingly validated the arguments of virtually all of the posters herein: Dogma is dogma, whether it be extremist islam or extremist anti-gun. Dogma needs no rationale to attract slavish adherents, because its basis is purely emotional. By its nature, dogma does not - and will not - respond to reason, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

All You Need to Know about the Gun Debate in Two Charts | Power Line

If you kill me, I will not be concerned if it was an Islamic terrorist or a redneck skinhead that clams to be a Christian living next door. I am a gun owner an I am positive that we need more gun control in this country.

I'm mixed up.
Isn't this story saying that the CDC has not done a study on this subject since 1996?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...two-years-ago/

Yet the chart to your link indicates otherwise

Tom, I will answer at the risk of raising Gracie's ire, which I am loath to do...sorry, Gracie...

The study I cited was performed by Mark Perry, a well-known authority specializing in Military, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs analysis, who retrieved the data directly from the CDC.

The CDC stopped performing its "analyses" years ago after they were revealed as biased by several responsible national organizations. For reasons of additional funding, the CDC would like to resume their "analyses", ergo the piece by their advocate, the Washington Post.

Here is a link you should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author)

It wasn't my intent to deflect. It is my honest opinion.

The Post story indicated that no CDC studies on this subject have been done since 1996? Unless the Post is incorrect, how could Perry retrieve the data on a study that was never performed?

I am so confused trying to follow this . One link on Perry was a blank and the CDC is the Center for Disease Control.


I understand about Dogma. I am trying to avoid it in my argument that I believe that Extreme Islam has targeted the U.S. and now that we cannot unlock and decipher online messages we are at a loss to know what the communications are about plans of known terrorists. In fact daily we probably are losing grasp of who the terrorists are here in the U.S.


Having a gun and knowing how to use it may keep you alive for awhile, but knowing if your water is safe to drink is another issue. There are all kinds of ways that someone or some group who want to harm innocent people can do so.


I have always thought myself to be a fairly calm and rational person but I am so confused by people who seem to be unaware of current events in the world and feel it isn't helpful to know what is happening. I am curious and a reader and my mind can be changed. I have voted both sides and become more and more moderate as I age.


Why do people keep showing things that are nice but so beside the point like folks hugging a man with a scarf over his head and a sign that says he is a Muslim?


Anyway. Somebody smart solve this problem. Is it solvable? Will this country eventually lose it's freedom?

Tom, It's raw data, and anyone can retrieve it. The CDC is simply a default repository for this type of data. They did not analyze it. You could conceivably take their data and analyze it if you chose. Perry simply quoted his source of the raw data on which he performed his brilliant analysis. Period.

It appears that the data excludes gun-related suicides.

It's been a while now and I've yet to see any mention that San Bernardino is a "sanctuary city." With practically round-the-clock coverage I can't imagine that this didn't come up as a subject in some newsroom somewhere. I wonder if the folks in San Bernardino thought that they would get some kind of "pass" on terrorism when it came to America.

I think that a lot of our opinions on the subject of extremists is based on how much news we watch. Because I am retired, and Wednesday is an "at home" day for me except for Art Studio in the morning, I returned last Wednesday and the shootings in San Bernardino had just come on all channels...all regular channels.


I watched it unfold, well into the night and for several days. I think when you are watching something happen in real time, you have a better idea about it. First it was thought to be a work place anger issue and it was a total surprise to watch them pull the dead shooters from the van and be told in a few minutes one of them was a woman.


I have that luxury now that I am older to watch the news and change the channel frequently. I also am interested in ideas and ideologies and world events, much more than when I was younger. I am more interested in history than when I was younger and I have from observing more than seven decades a better idea of how people generally react.


Like most people who aren't impaired,(lol) I have my opinions.


But I think they are informed opinions. I very much dislike hearing the biased opinions from commentators on Fox or CNN or MSNBC. I wish that journalism, the reporting of the news and not opinions dominated the news services. Some commentators are worse than others and no network is without political opinions.


I still say with that figured in that older people who have the time to watch the news probably know more about the world situation than those who still work. Or those who still play a lot. Not that you shouldn't be doing these things.


Just sayin.

Gracie, I'll start again. The reason I originally directed an apology to you was that this has more to do with guns.

So I posted this link to a study performed using the CDC raw data. The CDC had absolutely NOTHING to do with the study. Nothing! Something that was not clear to Tom. So here is that link:

All You Need to Know about the Gun Debate in Two Charts | Power Line

The Wiki link was simply identifying the credentials of the expert who designed the graphs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author)

I really don't understand any confusion...thought it was pretty straightforward. Hope this helps.

Old Yeller, Your Wikipedia link to Mark Perry had no information...and a disclaimer...Click on it. I don't know who Mark Perry is. I will look him up.


I did, got this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author) Interesting. My link is blank too, but it wasn't what I just read and linked to on Wikipedia. Hmmmm.

Gracie, WIKI shut it down. It was there yesterday. Please do look up Mark Perry on Bing; he is a brilliant man and an expert on Foreign Affairs, Terrorism, etc.

Why did Wiki shut it down?

My non-cynical guess is that they had so many hits they couldn't handle it.

My guts say they realized to their horror that it didn't fit their agenda. WIKI is biased. That's just my guts based on past experience.

Good Lord. I hope you are wrong.

I have that same hope quite often lately...time will tell. BTW, you know much more than you give yourself credit for...Just an observation.

Maybe I'm missing something. What is "ugly and destuctive" about halting and clearing properly?

Nothing. But the opposition and the Media do not mention that clause when they pump keeping people out because of their religion (that is their theocracy-government). They only repeat the "keep them out because of religion", "religious test", ugly part.

I saw talking heads arguing last night that Trump's ban is "unconstitutional" because of Article 6 saying "no religious test". But this is wrong, because the Article refers to people seeking to hold public office, NOT foreign nationals entering the country:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But those folks are shooting about drugs. Radical Islam does not use drugs or eat pork. At least that is what they are supposed to do.

The 911 JV team partied like there would be no tomorrow before they boarded those planes. Sex, drugs & rock n roll was on their plate, not sure bout the bacon though.

Mark Perry is an author. This seems to be where he got his chart and data.
Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up
Gun homicides steady after decline in

"The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 30% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2013 there were 467 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepancies between federal and local law enforcement counts.)"

I find that interesting.

I think I understand. Mark Perry got his data from the CDC who got it from the Pew Foundation that did the polling.

"The public has been divided on the issue of gun ownership in recent years. In our July survey, 50% said it is more important to control gun ownership and 47% said it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Support for controlling gun ownership has declined; throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, a majority of Americans said it was more important to control gun ownership."

It sounds like an even split of this subject. Why do the news sources make it so difficult to unravel?

more guns less murder
 

As I recall from Engineering Statistics class a long time ago, correlation does not imply causation.

I heard the two handguns were obtained legally but never really heard that the other two guns that were used in the attack were "legally obtained". I heard several reports that he got them from a friend/old roommate. If that is true, that's no a legal purchase!

The friend obtained them legally. He was a friend from childhood and was in the process of becoming a Muslim. The two men had conspired about four years ago to "do something" but but decided against it. His friend is married to a Russian immigrant whose sister is married to Fyeed Farook's brother, also named Fyeed Farook.


The friend checked himself into a mental health facility on the day of the the attacks. He is now being questioned by authorities. Yesterday the FBI was searching a pond near the area of the shootings.


More coming you can bet.

How many murders were instigated by drugs; taking them, buying them, selling them, not paying for them?


I would guess that those murders are by far the highest number and THOSE gun owners are to me, the most dangerous, well next to terrorists.


Remember, I don't have a gun and we aren't gunners. But I may change my mind. The second amendment is in place if I ever want to change my mind.

Let's issue guns to everyone qualified and put a bounty on proven terrorist and felons.