So, mass shootings only happen in the USA?

[Nebe]

Before the war in Iraq I noticed a phrase being thrown around on the news. "Weapons of mass distruction". I remember jokingly thinking to myself as to wtf that meant. Such a broad useless term.

Well. I am seeing a new term on the news. "Long guns".
This is just a hunch but I believe the term long gun will be used a lot in the future when the government tried to ban assault rifles.
I could be wrong.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Before the war in Iraq I noticed a phrase being thrown around on the news. "Weapons of mass distruction". I remember jokingly thinking to myself as to wtf that meant. Such a broad useless term.

This was a fairly common phrase in the cold war, not a common as say non-conventional weapons, but it was used in policy and military circles. The primary connotation was for referencing "NBC"; Nuclear Biological, Chemical,(now called CBRN with the addition of Radiological). So while you had not heard of it, professionals and academics in that space were using it and it had a specific meaning.

Originally Posted by Nebe

Well. I am seeing a new term on the news. "Long guns".
This is just a hunch but I believe the term long gun will be used a lot in the future when the government tried to ban assault rifles.
I could be wrong.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The term "Long Guns" is an old term but occasionally used. Typically refers to longer barreled guns (over 10 inches I think) and would include rifles, shotguns, semi-s, machine guns, etc. I do not understand why the media revived it last night but I would guess that someone did not want to use the term "Assault Weapon" - often inaccurately applied in the media. Then I assume, the rest of the Press/Media kept rolling it.

Should government decide to confiscate these "long guns" we will be in for heavy seas.


Speaking of Media competency: Did anyone see the Chicken that dies of fright last night?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I do not understand why the media revived it last night but I would guess that someone did not want to use the term "Assault Weapon" - often inaccurately applied in the media. Then I assume, the rest of the Press/Media kept rolling it.

I'd wager they were simply trying to describe the scene based on available information...long guns and hand guns without knowing additional details. Long gun has been used more frequently the last several years in the gun debate, at least from what I've seen.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd wager they were simply trying to describe the scene based on available information...long guns and hand guns without knowing additional details. Long gun has been used more frequently the last several years in the gun debate, at least from what I've seen.

Must have been used more in Progressive Circles if you have been seeing it more and more because generally I have not seen it much used in gun control. Historical writings, research, yes. Media / Gun Control, I have not seen it.

Long gun cover's a lot more thing things than just semi-auto

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I do not understand why the media revived it last night but I would guess that someone did not want to use the term "Assault Weapon" - often inaccurately applied in the media. Then I assume, the rest of the Press/Media kept rolling it.

They used it because that is the term the Police Chief used when addressing the media about it. Pretty smart actually...instead of giving out bogus info so the media could sensationalize it, they used this term until the facts were in....because, anything that isn't a hand gun, can be categorized as a long gun.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

They used it because that is the term the Police Chief used when addressing the media about it. Pretty smart actually...instead of giving out bogus info so the media could sensationalize it, they used this term until the facts were in....because, anything that isn't a hand gun, can be categorized as a long gun.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

They used it because that is the term the Police Chief used when addressing the media about it. Pretty smart actually...instead of giving out bogus info so the media could sensationalize it, they used this term until the facts were in....because, anything that isn't a hand gun, can be categorized as a long gun.

And I'm sure it's the term the witnesses used when describing what the terrorist used , you know while they were giving them the terrorists name .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I believe it's a legal definition.

[spence]

Hmmmmm....

http://thehill.com/regulation/health...ch-has-regrets

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ted-terrorists

[Jim in CT]

During my kids' lifetime, we will start having the horrible, but necessary, conversation about whether or not Islam is compatible with civilization. If 95% of Muslims are peace loving, they need to start exerting a LOT more influence over the other 5%. Or face ugly consequeces.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Or face ugly consequeces.

What the hell does that mean?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What the hell does that mean?

Spence, what do you honestly think the answer is? Do you concede there is a huge problem with Islam in the world today? Or do you side with our moron-in-chief, who thinks the problem is citizens with lawfully-purchased guns?

If you concede there is a huge problem with Islam, what would you do about it?

My guess...eventually a western nation is going to lose a city. When that happens, the west may well say "we tried welcoming Muslims, but it's not working, it's time for you to go, and no more Muslims can enter our country." I just don't see what an alternative answer is.

We also need to take the gloves off, completely off, when it comes to dealing with known terrorists. Our current POTUS thinks it's wrong to pour water down the nose of someone with insider knowledge of a planned attack at an elementary school. I don't think we can afford that anymore.

I am speculating, of course, that this was a terrorist attack. But the guy's name wasn't Seamus O'Grady, and it wasn't County Cork where he spent a month recently.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

What the hell does that mean?

We can start with closing Mosques down, make the Muslims register (we can tattoo the #s on their arm), wear stars on their clothing. If that doesn't work we can put them in camps - might as well make them work to earn their keep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We can start with closing Mosques down, make the Muslims register (we can tattoo the #s on their arm), wear stars on their clothing. If that doesn't work we can put them in camps - might as well make them work to earn their keep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, we tried electing a guy who thought he could fix the problem by being softer with them. IT'S NOT WORKING. So what would you do?

For starters, it's time to take the gloves all the way off in dealing with the people we know are involved. Make waterboarding look like an invitation to a noon tea party. If we have to torture these people overseas, fine. But the gloves need to come off. If the last 8 years have taught sane people anything, it's that trying to be nicer, doesn't work.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, we tried electing a guy who thought he could fix the problem by being softer with them. IT'S NOT WORKING. So what would you do?

For starters, it's time to take the gloves all the way off in dealing with the people we know are involved. Make waterboarding look like an invitation to a noon tea party. If we have to torture these people overseas, fine. But the gloves need to come off. If the last 8 years have taught sane people anything, it's that trying to be nicer, doesn't work.

I'm not willing to throw away the values that we held for almost our total existance - not torturing people.

There was a special on Showtime the other night and I wasn't really watching it but I did see many former CIA directors saying that the best way to get info. is to be bc friends w/the prisoner.

[PaulS]

I hope jim has the same discussion with his son about the planned parenthood protesters. The amount of criminal behavior from them is so much higher than the general public that the government should have the FBI look into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I hope jim has the same discussion with his son about the planned parenthood protesters. The amount of criminal behavior from them is so much higher than the general public that the government should have the FBI look into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back that statement up ........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I hope jim has the same discussion with his son about the planned parenthood protesters. The amount of criminal behavior from them is so much higher than the general public that the government should have the FBI look into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The anti-abortion kooks probably do commit a lot more crime than the average citizen. But sure as hell, they don't commit anywhere near as much violence as jihadists. This one shooting yesterday, will leave almost half as many did as have been killed by anti-abortion protesters in the last 40 years.

I am sure the FBIlooks into these people. But you cannot compare the threat they pose, to that posed by jihadists.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The anti-abortion kooks probably do commit a lot more crime than the average citizen. But sure as hell, they don't commit anywhere near as much violence as jihadists. This one shooting yesterday, will leave almost half as many did as have been killed by anti-abortion protesters in the last 40 years.

I am sure the FBIlooks into these people. But you cannot compare the threat they pose, to that posed by jihadists.

I'm sure that they commit less violence then the jihadists, but what level does the violence have to reach bf something is done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

I'll have to say it is stunning the contrast between President Obama's reaction to an attack on our country and the leader of France's reaction to an attack on his country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'll have to say it is stunning the contrast between President Obama's reaction to an attack on our country and the leader of France's reaction to an attack on his country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, you're thinking we could at least bomb Dearborn as a start?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'll have to say it is stunning the contrast between President Obama's reaction to an attack on our country and the leader of France's reaction to an attack on his country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Understatement of the year, Buck.. Even this morning he said" It is POSSIBLE
that this was terrorist related. We don't know. It's possible that this was workplace related. "

Believe it or not there are sheeple who will actually believe he really doesn't know, even with all the facts that have come out in the last 24 hours. Remember the Iissis JV team is under control ?

God Bless our law enforcement officers for their outstanding work.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Understatement of the year, Buck.. Even this morning he said" It is POSSIBLE
that this was terrorist related. We don't know. It's possible that this was workplace related. "

Believe it or not there are sheeple who will actually believe he really doesn't know, even with all the facts that have come out in the last 24 hours. Remember the Iissis JV team is under control ?

God Bless our law enforcement officers for their outstanding work.

My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. Considering the very strange situation of this attack I don't think they really know the full motive. It's like the Ft. Hood shooter, there was evidence of radicalization but also a mental state brought about by the death of his mother that caused him to break.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. Considering the very strange situation of this attack I don't think they really know the full motive. It's like the Ft. Hood shooter, there was evidence of radicalization but also a mental state brought about by the death of his mother that caused him to break.

Well he is legally the President and this is the time to act like one, if he can't, then get the hell out of the way
wtf

[Slipknot]

so are we supposed to sit around and wait for the next situation that does not fit nicely in a box and expect the government to protect us?
maybe the next terrorist had some other kind of event or trauma in his life and reaches his boiling point and attacks God knows where next.
This is what they want.
I'm not going to be a sheep

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. Considering the very strange situation of this attack I don't think they really know the full motive. It's like the Ft. Hood shooter, there was evidence of radicalization but also a mental state brought about by the death of his mother that caused him to break.

"My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around"

OK, I made it up that liberals are permissive, yet you can claim that Obama is legally barred from saying the word "terrorism".

Remember, when you are painting inside, you need to open the windows a crack. I think you've been painting with the windows closed.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. .

So then he would face punishment for using a" legal word" if it didn't meet with what
he, the law professsor, whoops LAW INSTRUCTOR, determines is??
Sounds more like he is hiding behind a word to protect his legacy like he tried with the Benghazi tape.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

So then he would face punishment for using a" legal word" if it didn't meet with what
he, the law professsor, whoops LAW INSTRUCTOR, determines is??
Sounds more like he is hiding behind a word to protect his legacy like he tried with the Benghazi tape.

He just said today it could be. You're just looking for gripes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Why aren't they calling this terrorism ? Two Muslims shot up a Christmas party ..... Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Why aren't they calling this terrorism ? Two Muslims shot up a Christmas party ..... Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pisses you off doesn't it?
it should

there are enough facts known already to call it what it is = Terrorism, a terrorist attack in this country, radical islamists
it is what is is

I still don't understand why our president will not say the word

They planned it, had bombs and everything and attacked innocent people at a Christmas party. Seems pretty obvious to me.

reason why they don't call a spade a spade = the wusification of America the land that I love.

time to take back America from the pussies who have allowed this to happen in the first place.