California synagogue shooting

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

That's one of the arguments the gun control crowd likes to use. They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people. That is why guns should be harder to get legally, according to the gun control crowd.

The same can be said about knives, hammers, axes, rat poison, automobiles, trucks, chain saws, and gasoline (arson), and baseball bats. But, when a knife, a hammer, an axe, rat poison, an automobile or a truck, a chain saw, a can of gasoline, or a baseball bat is used, the focus is on the person who committed the crime rather than an immediate rush to ban or heavily regulate the [___] that was used. Whatever [___] is, it's an inanimate object, an instrument, a tool. [___] didn't commit any crime ... it was used by a person to commit a crime.

What we (IMHO) **must** realize is that the anti-gun forces are irrational about guns. They love the term "common sense," but common sense should dictate that the key to reducing crime is to address criminals, not to ban tools. The position of the gun control advocates is illogical and irrational. It completely ignores the reality that if people want to commit crimes, they will find ways to do it.

It's much more difficult for people in Europe to have guns than it is in the U.S. Result: Look at the carnage in Europe over the past year (or so) wrought by people driving cars and trucks into throngs of people. And now that's coming to the U.S. There was an incident not all that long ago, IIRC, in which somebody drove a rented truck down a bikeway in New York City. And four days ago someone did the same thing in San Francisco. Note the locations: New York City and San Francisco are among the American cities where it's the most difficult for citizens to have guns. So ... people who wanted to kill other people simply moved on and chose an alternate weapon. Lack of access to guns did NOT prevent the attacks. Any belief that it might do so is, IMHO, magical thinking.

[Tom Servo]

They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people.

The idea that any person walking down the street could be a powderkeg of potential violence betrays a certain grim outlook about human nature.

It also leads us down a dismal slope of encroachments on all our civil liberties.

[Double Naught Spy]

The same can be said about knives, hammers, axes, rat poison, automobiles, trucks, chain saws, and gasoline (arson), and baseball bats. But, when a knife, a hammer, an axe, rat poison, an automobile or a truck, a chain saw, a can of gasoline, or a baseball bat is used, the focus is on the person who committed the crime rather than an immediate rush to ban or heavily regulate the [___] that was used. Whatever [___] is, it's an inanimate object, an instrument, a tool. [___] didn't commit any crime ... it was used by a person to commit a crime.

This is because, in part, the anti-gun crowd perceives all those things as having legitimate uses by normal people outside of killing or doing harm to other people. This is not a belief shared by the anti-gun crowd concerning guns, which are perceived to be for the sole purpose of killing, which is a belief held by a surprising number of gun owners as well, but viewed from a different perspective, an irrational perspective, as you said.

It's much more difficult for people in Europe to have guns than it is in the U.S. Result: Look at the carnage in Europe over the past year (or so) wrought by people driving cars and trucks into throngs of people. And now that's coming to the U.S.

So it became popular in 2018 in Europe and now it is come here to our side of the pond? Actually, we have been ramming people on our side of the pond for decades...

1977 https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...453,474007&dq=
1984 https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...07,2783364&dq=
2004 Serial Rammer https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/n...s-killing.html
2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_UNC_SUV_attack
2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_S...co_SUV_rampage
2010 Canada https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rowd-1.1062248
2011 https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/...rs-on-purpose/
2013 https://www.latimes.com/local/crime/...501-story.html
2014 https://www.amny.com/news/kevin-week...g-1-1.11613252
2014 https://www.foxnews.com/us/driver-in...wd-report-says
2015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-l...0U40X120151223
2016 https://abc7ny.com/woman-convicted-f...stead/3156420/
2017 https://thehill.com/homenews/news/42...y-convicted-of

So yeah, we have been doing it here in the states for terrorist, anger, revenge, mental health reasons for decades, and these were necessarily due to a lack of access of guns. In reality, this goes on and has been going on around the world, China, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Haiti, Canada, Turkey, England, various countries in mainland Europe, Egypt, etc. It is described in an Al-Queada book from 2010 for this purpose...
https://abc7chicago.com/news/authori...in-us/1954694/

[Aguila Blanca]

Double Naught: Your statistics on automotive-related assaults just document my point. There was no outcry after those incidents to ban automobiles or to subject people to intrusive background checks before allowing them to apply for a driver's license. Guns really are somewhat unique in having been singled out as agents of destruction.

[MoArk Willy]

The term hate crime is over used...or perhaps redundant.
If you kill someone in cold blood it's an act of hate.
Color, race age or sex doesn't matter. It's still hate.
It's sad that there are those who will use every tragedy to push an agenda.
It shouldn't be that way. What matters are the victims. Stopping crimes should be the only agenda, not a mean to push other agendas.

Guns aren't and never were the problem or the issue. It is all about how people treat each other. Violent crimes don't stop when guns are restricted or banned.
Statistics show that the UK gun ban increased crime by nearly 50%. Unfortunately you have to WANT to look at those facts because they are never mentioned by those posing an anti-gun agenda.
And as far a gun laws go....every mass shooting happened because someone broke an existing law or laws. Does anyone thing more laws won't be broken?

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

19 year old boy in General Lock-up. Perhaps the rest of his life?
Sad jailing outcome for He and suffering memory's for family is assured.

[PhotonGuy]

This is because, in part, the anti-gun crowd perceives all those things as having legitimate uses by normal people outside of killing or doing harm to other people. This is not a belief shared by the anti-gun crowd concerning guns, which are perceived to be for the sole purpose of killing

Guns have uses other than killing people, target shooting for instance, and hunting. And as for killing people, there are other things that can be more effective than guns at that even if that is not their intended purpose, gasoline for instance.

[Double Naught Spy]

It would appear that the shooter was using low capacity 10 round magazines.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-gu...ry?id=62726420
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...i7u-story.html

[thallub]

Oscar Stewart, the unarmed good guy who chased the shooter, is a former Navy EOD guy and US Army staff sergeant.

Good on Oscar Stewart.

[Aguila Blanca]

So the gun was purchased legally. In California, which already has in place pretty much every anti-gun restriction the gun control advocates want nationally. And it didn't prevent an attack. A rational person would draw some logical inferences from that regarding the efficacy of "gun" laws to control human behavior, but (as we know), the gun control advocates aren't rational.

Does anyone know if the synagogue is/was a gun-free zone? Either by state law or by its own policies?

[TomNJVA]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect. The military uses them to protect our country and its interests, law enforcement use them to protect our communities and businesses, and citizens use them to protect our homes and families. Killing is often an outcome of this protection, but not the purpose of the firearm. Killing outside the purpose of protection is a misuse of the firearm.

[Double Naught Spy]

Does anyone know if the synagogue is/was a gun-free zone? Either by state law or by its own policies?

Well, if it was a GFZ, then that was being violated by one or more of the members. The BP agent didn't even have a gun. It was given to him by another member.
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...ogue-shooting/

However, it was not a GFZ by policy. In fact, the rabbi had been having volunteer armed guards present, but had gotten complacent about maintaining armed vigils.
https://news.yahoo.com/fearing-attac...QDBHNlYwNzcg--

Instead, the synagogue relied on armed volunteers to occasionally sit in the lobby, according to Goldstein. But as time went on, Goldstein said he felt an attack was less likely and it was less urgent to secure armed volunteers. “It’s been six months and nothing happened,” he recalled himself thinking before Saturday’s attack. “You start getting complacent.”

There were no armed volunteers positioned in the lobby Saturday when a gunman barged in, as about 75 congregants waited for services to begin on the last day of Passover.

[50 shooter]

It has nothing to do with what laws are in place, have been broken, shooters age...

Anti gun policies are just that, anti gun! They don't want people to own or have access to any guns period! And if you think one party is better than the other, you need to wake up.

Playing nice so that we look good doesn't matter either, look at how anti gun people act and no one cares! If they did, these people would've been stomped into the dirt already!

The most disturbing thing is that each time this happens, they don't care what the circumstances are, they just start in on the gun control B.S. Do you think they care about the families of the victims?

[Double Naught Spy]

Do you think they care about the families of the victims?

No less so than the pro-gun people. Both sides use the shooting to push agendas. Both sides think their view of the world is the solution to the same problem.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This thread is to discuss the incident. Let's not go down general gun control issues.

We have plenty of discussion of such elsewhere. I don't want to close it, so don't go off topic.

Thanks.

[PhotonGuy]

This thread is to discuss the incident. Let's not go down general gun control issues.

We have plenty of discussion of such elsewhere. I don't want to close it, so don't go off topic.

Thanks.

Good point. When I start a topic about a recent shooting it tends to get closed. So anyway, as to this particular incident, synagogues seem to be under attack. Last year there was a synagogue shooting too. That being the case, Im thinking that synagogues should have armed security, that would stop such shootings in the first place.

And we need more people like the border patrol agent who had a handgun and engaged the shooter, and the unarmed person who, even though he was unarmed, charged the shooter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect.

I 'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. And I think we on the pro-gun side will lose all (or almost all) credibility if we try to advance this as a position.

Look at the history of the firearm and you'll see that it was invented (by the Chinese) as a weapon for waging war. Over the history of firearms, most advances in firearms design and technology have been driven by the use of firearms for war and for killing (be it people or animals). The notion of owning firearms for a purpose or purposes other than killing (people or animals) is comparatively very recent. Even today, since hunting involves killing (animals), I would have to question whether more people, either in the U.S. or worldwide) have guns for some kind of self defense that doesn't include killing, or for a primary purpose that involves killing.

[PhotonGuy]

I 'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. And I think we on the pro-gun side will lose all (or almost all) credibility if we try to advance this as a position.

Look at the history of the firearm and you'll see that it was invented (by the Chinese) as a weapon for waging war. Over the history of firearms, most advances in firearms design and technology have been driven by the use of firearms for war and for killing (be it people or animals). The notion of owning firearms for a purpose or purposes other than killing (people or animals) is comparatively very recent. Even today, since hunting involves killing (animals), I would have to question whether more people, either in the U.S. or worldwide) have guns for some kind of self defense that doesn't include killing, or for a primary purpose that involves killing.

Sure, the gun and the power that comes with it was designed to kill, and to this day guns are designed for that purpose, to kill bad people or to kill animals such as when you go hunting. However, using a gun to hurt/kill innocent people is a corruption of that power. The shooter at the synagogue was using a gun for the wrong reason and the wrong purpose. What he did is a corruption of the power that comes with having a gun.

[manta49]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect. The military uses them to protect our country and its interests, law enforcement use them to protect our communities and businesses, and citizens use them to protect our homes and families. Killing is often an outcome of this protection, but not the purpose of the firearm. Killing outside the purpose of protection is a misuse of the firearm.

Firearms were and are designed to kill, no point denying that. That's not a argument for gun control just a fact.

As for Europe and UK as said terrorists have used other methods to kill people, knifes trucks etc. That's because firearms are harder to obtain, knifes etc are not their first choice they are used when they can't get their first choice firearms.
Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?

[44 AMP]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect.

At the risk of further thread drift, I just have to comment on this.

It's incorrect. It's a matter of the proper use of language, which very few people do, and some flatly refuse to.

The purpose of a gun, is the same as a bow, or an atlatl, or a slingshot, etc. It is to launch a projectile in order to strike a target. What that target is, and what the shooter wants the strike to do, are decided by the shooter.

"kill" or "defend" or put holes in a piece of paper, tis not the gun that decides that, it is the PERSON shooting.

Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?

The guys who hijacked those airplanes and flew them into building on 9/11/01 did... knives were used to obtain control of the airplanes, so they could use the aircraft as weapons..

Back to the topic, HAS it been determined that the killer bought his gun legally in CA?

Went through their background check, waiting period, and what ever else they have? and was approved? Not that it matters if he did, only that if so, its one thing to remove from discussion.

[Double Naught Spy]

Firearms were and are designed to kill, no point denying that. That's not a argument for gun control just a fact.

I have seen the designs for several firearms. On NONE of them is the "kill" parameter. Firearms today are designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner. Whether that is applied to "killing" humans or animals, target shooting, etc. are applications, not design parameters.

[manta49]

Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?
The guys who hijacked those airplanes and flew them into building on 9/11/01 did... knives were used to obtain control of the airplanes, so they could use the aircraft as weapons..

The plan of that attack was to crash a aircraft into the twin towers destroy the buildings an kill as many as possible, a knife in that situation would be more effective and easy to get trough security that a firearm. As for the attack on the church nothing new criminal / terrorist with a gun trying to kill people very sad for the victims, and their families something they were doing here over thirty years ago.

The Darkley killings (or Darkley massacre) was a gun attack carried out on the 28th of November 1983 at Mountain Lodge Pentecostal Church while a church service of over 60 people was in service, it was just outside the village of Darkley in County Armagh. Three members of the church were shot dead as they stood outside the entrance of the building; they were all Protestant civilians.

[Pahoo]

The purpose of a gun, is the same as a bow, or an atlatl, or a slingshot, etc. It is to launch a projectile in order to strike a target. What that target is, and what the shooter wants the strike to do, are decided by the shooter.

Exactly and one of my interests is primative weapons. Yes, they have evoved and the primary purpose is to "Provide and Protect" That includes the taking of a life. The Chinese have been mentioned and Gun-Powder did not start out as a propellant, it started out as an Aphrodisiac. They liked the surprising results and progressed basically into incendiary devices, then propellant for cannons. …

They all started out as tools/force multipliers not to kill other humans but to provide for food as there were no local Walmarts or LEO's. Eventually they were used for protection. ..

If firearms were invented primarily to kill humans, then so were hammers, axes, knives, rocks and all other primitive force-multipliers. ….

Be Safe !!!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pahoo

They all started out as tools/force multipliers not to kill other humans but to provide for food as there were no local Walmarts or LEO's.

I'm afraid I am contributing to thread drift here, but I really don't think I can let this go without refuting it. The firearm was invented as a weapon of war, by the Chinese around the 10th century A.D. Calling it a tool or a "force multiplier" is just employing a euphemism. They were invented as weapons of war, and at that time in history military leaders weren't bound by any Geneva conventions on "humane" warfare. Their ideal was to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

The fact that in the last century more people use firearms for hunting or for sport does not change the facts regarding the origins of the firearm. To argue otherwise just makes us look either ignorant, or (worse) like liars.

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

In China, the earliest firearm was the fire lance, a black-powder–filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower (not to be confused with the Byzantine flamethrower); shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames. The earliest known depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang. The De'an Shoucheng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132 during the Jin–Song Wars, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchen.

The proportion of saltpeter in the propellant was increased to maximize its explosive power. To better withstand that explosive power, the paper and bamboo of which fire-lance barrels were originally made came to be replaced with metal. And to take full advantage of that power, the shrapnel came to be replaced by projectiles whose size and shape filled the barrel more closely. With this, the three basic features of the gun emerged: a barrel made of metal, high-nitrate gunpowder, and a projectile which totally occludes the muzzle so that the powder charge exerts its full potential in propellant effect.

I respectfully suggest that if people are interested in having a discussion on whether guns were or were not "designed for killing," someone start a separate thread for that topic. This thread is supposed to be about the synagogue shooting, so let's return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[PhotonGuy]

I respectfully suggest that if people are interested in having a discussion on whether guns were or were not "designed for killing," someone start a separate thread for that topic. This thread is supposed to be about the synagogue shooting, so let's return to our regularly scheduled programming

I agree. I will start another thread to debate over whether or not guns were and are designed for killing. Now back to the synagogue shooting.

My condolences to the friends and family of the woman who was killed in the shooting. Hats off to those that challenged the shooter. As for the shooter, CA I believe does have the death penalty, its what the shooter deserves, either that or a life sentence without parole.