San Bernardino School Shooting

[tycho1572]

They're saying one of the students that was wounded in the shooting has died, an 8 year old boy. Apparently was too close to the female teacher, who was shot and killed by her husband according to reports. Both were 53. The police do not believe the students who were shot were targets. Not much on the other wounded student, I read he/she was in critical condition so prayers are warranted. It was a special needs class BTW.

Update: The other wounded student, aged 9, is now in stable condition. Both students were apparently behind the teacher when she was shot, hence their wounds. Apparently the shooter (husband) had a criminal record, including weapons and domestic violence charges, but no specifics have been provided yet. So, how'd he get his hands on the gun? I'm sure it'll come out fairly soon.

Thanks for the update.

America was crippled when Trump took over.

Are you suggesting these shootings didn't start while obama was president?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They're saying one of the students that was wounded in the shooting has died, an 8 year old boy. Apparently was too close to the female teacher, who was shot and killed by her husband according to reports. Both were 53. The police do not believe the students who were shot were targets. Not much on the other wounded student, I read he/she was in critical condition so prayers are warranted. It was a special needs class BTW.

Update: The other wounded student, aged 9, is now in stable condition. Both students were apparently behind the teacher when she was shot, hence their wounds. Apparently the shooter (husband) had a criminal record, including weapons and domestic violence charges, but no specifics have been provided yet. So, how'd he get his hands on the gun? I'm sure it'll come out fairly soon.

Thanks for the update.

America was crippled when Trump took over.

Right! [/sarcasm]

 

[CeeCee]

They're saying one of the students that was wounded in the shooting has died, an 8 year old boy. Apparently was too close to the female teacher, who was shot and killed by her husband according to reports. Both were 53. The police do not believe the students who were shot were targets. Not much on the other wounded student, I read he/she was in critical condition so prayers are warranted. It was a special needs class BTW.

Update: The other wounded student, aged 9, is now in stable condition. Both students were apparently behind the teacher when she was shot, hence their wounds. Apparently the shooter (husband) had a criminal record, including weapons and domestic violence charges, but no specifics have been provided yet. So, how'd he get his hands on the gun? I'm sure it'll come out fairly soon.

Thanks for the update.

Very sad!

 

[Gracie]

Wow. Lots of ire in this thread. I just saw the news, brought it here, said what I said and left it for discussion.

I own two guns. I don't have children here, either. But if I did...if I did not take pains to make SURE they didn't KNOW I had guns and HID them and LOCKED THE GUNS UP, I would be liable for negligence, right? And rightfully so.

What I am saying is, in my initial opinion, is bullying is rampant. Kids getting fed up with it either kill themselves OR get mommy and daddys gun and take care of the problem. And it is mommy and daddy responsible for the access to the paybacks.

Teachers and principles pooh poohing off known bullying is another thread that might eventually be made. THIS thread is about the easy access of children to GUNS because PARENTS don't make the effort to keep said kids from getting them.

You obviously have not followed the story. Why is that?

Because there are lots of stories I am keeping up on. I am catching up now. Does that answer your question?

 

[miketx]

They're saying one of the students that was wounded in the shooting has died, an 8 year old boy. Apparently was too close to the female teacher, who was shot and killed by her husband according to reports. Both were 53. The police do not believe the students who were shot were targets. Not much on the other wounded student, I read he/she was in critical condition so prayers are warranted. It was a special needs class BTW.

Update: The other wounded student, aged 9, is now in stable condition. Both students were apparently behind the teacher when she was shot, hence their wounds. Apparently the shooter (husband) had a criminal record, including weapons and domestic violence charges, but no specifics have been provided yet. So, how'd he get his hands on the gun? I'm sure it'll come out fairly soon.

Thanks for the update.

America was crippled when Trump took over.

Are you suggesting these shootings didn't start while obama was president?

I'm suggesting America was crippled when Trump took over. And you can't blame all of the degradation of our society on Obama, no matter how big a pos he is.

 

[MaryL]

It would be hard to do mass shootings if you didn't have a gun. Just saying. What is so funny about peace love and gun control?

 

[miketx]

It would be hard to do mass shootings if you didn't have a gun. Just saying. What is so funny about peace love and gun control?

Surely you aren't that ignorant?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wow. Lots of ire in this thread. I just saw the news, brought it here, said what I said and left it for discussion.

I own two guns. I don't have children here, either. But if I did...if I did not take pains to make SURE they didn't KNOW I had guns and HID them and LOCKED THE GUNS UP, I would be liable for negligence, right? And rightfully so.

What I am saying is, in my initial opinion, is bullying is rampant. Kids getting fed up with it either kill themselves OR get mommy and daddys gun and take care of the problem. And it is mommy and daddy responsible for the access to the paybacks.

Teachers and principles pooh poohing off known bullying is another thread that might eventually be made. THIS thread is about the easy access of children to GUNS because PARENTS don't make the effort to keep said kids from getting them.

You obviously have not followed the story. Why is that?

Because there are lots of stories I am keeping up on. I am catching up now. Does that answer your question?

Yet, you chose to pontificate on the scenario before any facts were known and then left the thread, Bad form!

 

[tycho1572]

They're saying one of the students that was wounded in the shooting has died, an 8 year old boy. Apparently was too close to the female teacher, who was shot and killed by her husband according to reports. Both were 53. The police do not believe the students who were shot were targets. Not much on the other wounded student, I read he/she was in critical condition so prayers are warranted. It was a special needs class BTW.

Update: The other wounded student, aged 9, is now in stable condition. Both students were apparently behind the teacher when she was shot, hence their wounds. Apparently the shooter (husband) had a criminal record, including weapons and domestic violence charges, but no specifics have been provided yet. So, how'd he get his hands on the gun? I'm sure it'll come out fairly soon.

Thanks for the update.

America was crippled when Trump took over.

Are you suggesting these shootings didn't start while obama was president?

I'm suggesting America was crippled when Trump took over. And you can't blame all of the degradation of our society on Obama, no matter how big a pos he is.

While we can't fault obama for everything, we can certainly put most of this shit squarely on his shoulders.

Obama was easily the worst president I've ever experienced.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

 

[2aguy]

It would be hard to do mass shootings if you didn't have a gun. Just saying. What is so funny about peace love and gun control?

About 100 million unarmed men, women and children murdered and put into mass graves around the world....

In Mexico....unarmed Mexican citizens are murdered in the 10s of thousands by the drug cartels with their government allies in the police and military......

Gun control only helps evil people........

 

[2aguy]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

He was willing to commit murder.....he would have gotten a gun....

Gun registration would not have stopped him.....twit.....besides....he wouldn't have to register an illegal gun since he obviously could not legally own one....in Haynes v. United States the Supreme court ruled that criminals do not have to register illegally owned guns because it violates their right against self incrimination...moron...so the NRA would have nothing to do with it.....

Background checks would not have stopped him since he couldn't legally own the gun he already had.....and genius......criminals like this use other people to buy their guns for them.....his wife would have bought the gun for him from even a private seller, making your background check useless.......

Do you think before you post...or do you post out of your ass?

Neither of those things would have stopped this guy from using an illegal gun to commit illegal murder....

and as you just pointed out....this was not an act of passion....this guy had a long history of abuse, violence, drugs and alcohol...there was nothing spontaneous about this.....as actual research shows....he was not just a normal guy who snapped and killed his wife......he was just like the 90% of murderers who have long histories of crime and violence before they commit murder....

 

[westwall]

What a cliché. Some moron shoots someone and people start blaming guns LOL.
Oy vey

WTF are they supposed to blame?
When I was a baby, mom gave me oj for the first time and I was screaming with a belly ache in an hour. She said my dad walked the floor with me saying "Goddamned orange juice, there, there, okay, goddamned orange juice" for hours. It's a normal reaction if you're not a libertarian.

How about the bad guy who was already a prohibited person. In other words he had the gun illegally. Color me surprised, a criminal, breaking the law to kill the woman he was evidently abusing. It's a sad tragedy for the parents, but yet again, if you want to murder someone do it at a school, it's the one place where you can be absolutely sure your target won't be able to protect themselves.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.

That noise you just heard was your argument blowing up in your face! Doesn't that sting just a little?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Business as usual in the U.S.

Gfys scumbag school shootings happen across the globe.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Too many murder suicide scenarios happening lately.

Domestic violence is big in this area, too. But let's arm more Americans--it's our right to shoot each other at will.

If the teacher had been armed none of this would have happened.

I believe you're joking, aren't you Tommy? Many of our elementary schools keep their doors locked now. You have to get buzzed in. It's sad, but it keeps infuriated crazies from coming in and committing mayhem.

We had a school shooting in 1996 and the laws were tightened rather than fortifying the schools. We havent had a school shooting since.
Nothing will happen after this and American kids will still be used as target practise due to the activities of the NRA and their bought and paid for politicians.

No it is a direct result of gun free zone scumbags, this blood is on your hands mother fucker.

 

[Gracie]

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.

True that ^

 

[Vandalshandle]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.

That noise you just heard was your argument blowing up in your face! Doesn't that sting just a little?

I don't think so, "Admiral". Even you could not keep a straight face while telling me that the NRA approves of the California law you quoted, and would have no objections of other states adopting it. Also, you seemed to have overlooked the other things that I mentioned that may have prevented this man from owning a gun, including gun registration.

 

[westwall]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.

That noise you just heard was your argument blowing up in your face! Doesn't that sting just a little?

I don't think so, "Admiral". Even you could not keep a straight face while telling me that the NRA approves of the California law you quoted, and would have no objections of other states adopting it. Also, you seemed to have overlooked the other things that I mentioned that may have prevented this man from owning a gun, including gun registration.

He was already a prohibited person nimrod. Thus, it was already a FELONY for him to possess the firearm. NO firearm may be transferred withing the State of California without a registration, and a background check. Period. Thus the very laws that you claim would have prevented him from getting a gun ARE ALREADY LAW in CA!

Really effective aren't they.....dipshit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The shooter had a history of domestic violence, weapons, and drug charges. Yet, he was carrying and used a .357. Why did he have access to a gun? Don't know, but I am sure that the NRA is content with whatever reason.

You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.

Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?

1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.


Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.

Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.

That noise you just heard was your argument blowing up in your face! Doesn't that sting just a little?

I don't think so, "Admiral". Even you could not keep a straight face while telling me that the NRA approves of the California law you quoted, and would have no objections of other states adopting it. Also, you seemed to have overlooked the other things that I mentioned that may have prevented this man from owning a gun, including gun registration.

He was already a prohibited person nimrod. Thus, it was already a FELONY for him to possess the firearm. NO firearm may be transferred withing the State of California without a registration, and a background check. Period. Thus the very laws that you claim would have prevented him from getting a gun ARE ALREADY LAW in CA!

Really effective aren't they.....dipshit.

...and, based on my prior experience with this Mod poster, I'm out of here......