BREAKING: 14 Dead, 14 Wounded in Active Shooting in San Bernardino [UPDATED WITH AUDIO]

vktaOBz

[UPDATED 12/2/2015 4:16 PM Central]

Reports are coming in that there has been an “active shooter” situation in San Bernardino, California. Reports indicate that the Inland Regional Center was hosting an event when “more than one gunman” entered and began firing. Local law enforcement is reportedly searching for between 1 and 3 suspects involved in the incident. One suspect is reported as being detained at this time. Information provided at a press conference indicates that 14 people were killed and 14 more injured. According to reports heard on police scanners . . .

Untitled

The suspect entered the location, acted suspicious, then left 20 minutes before the incident happened [source]. Officers seem to believe that there are two males armed with rifles and wearing “vests and masks,” but witnesses are reporting three individuals with rifles. Other reports indicate there might be a bomb inside the building.

The above is the raw audio feed from the local law enforcement radio channels from the beginning of the event and running for about 12 minutes.

The initial report was for a suspect in black clothing firing shots in the building. Current description is for 3 males of unknown race wearing black clothing and masks. Current scanner traffic indicates that LAPD had contact with the suspect earlier in the week. At 2:33 PM Central the scanner traffic indicated that at least one person was detained in connection with this situation. Police are looking for a black Yukon vehicle occupied by a person with a black mask on their face, and reports indicate that a couple people were seen ditching some black clothing near an overpass some distance from the location possibly as part of an escape attempt.

From CNN’s reporting on the location:

Wednesday’s San Bernardino, California, shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center, a facility for people with developmental disabilities. It is unclear how many people were at the facility at the time of the shooting. The center’s Facebook page says it employs nearly 670 staff members at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, providing service to more than 30,200 people.

California has the strictest gun laws in the United States, including massive restrictions on magazine capacity as well as an agressive “assault weapons” ban, and has had “universal background checks” since 1994.

comments

  1. avatar Orion says:

    Listening to the scanner. 3 male shooters potentially with vests and long rifles. My money is on terrorist attack too.

    1. avatar Jambo says:

      Whatever it is, it will be used to attack our freedoms, either our gun rights, or the right to privacy.

      1. avatar NJGunGuy says:

        Jambo,

        It will be used to attack both gun rights and freedoms.

        1. avatar Hildabeast says:

          Too late. I’m all over it.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Jambo,

        You might be surprised. Just two days ago, Detroit Police Chief James Craig extolled the virtue of an armed citizenry with respect to deterring or mitigating a terrorist attack.

        Even Washington D.C. Police Chief Lanier recently stated publicly that people who counterattack a spree killer or terrorist will reduce the number of casualties. Of course she failed to support the obvious fact that it is best to have a firearm when counterattacking a terrorist or spree killer who has a firearm. Nevertheless, even stating that a counterattack is good is something that you would not have heard two years ago.

        People are starting to wake up. And that is why, in my personal opinion, gun grabbers are shrieking with a fervor and desperation that we have never seen before.

    2. avatar GWHNick says:

      Although I am away from CA, all my family lives about 20 miles from this. My sister’s boyfriend works down the street from this and said 12 dead and 22 injured and it is at a mall. As of right now, he said they escaped and are wearing armor. So much for gun control…

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        “Absolutely heartbreaking,” California Sen. Dianne Feinstein tweeted.

        I would say heartbreaking that the victims couldn’t defend themselves.

        1. avatar Lucas T. Hill says:

          Reports are coming in that many of the victims at the Regional Services Center had “intellectual and developmental disabilities.” Not every victim is going to be able to defend themselves with a firearm.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          But, Lucas…what of the staff then?

          What’s your well reasoned argument as to why THEY should not be “allowed” to properly defend not only themselves but the developmentally challenged people in their care?

        3. avatar Lucas T. Hill says:

          JR_in_NC:

          Four reasons:
          1. Liability insurance and property rights. Business owners will not want to be on the hook for their employee’s NDs. How many “Irresponsible Gun Owner” articles has TTAG written? Business owners can’t insure that their employees are competent, especially for large businesses, and have the right to prohibit guns on their property. In addition, there are many jobs, like working in an insane asylum, or as a swim instructor, or stripper, or boxer, where workers and employees can’t be armed.

          2. Division of labor. Think of all the jobs in which people need to focus on the work at hand and can’t be scanning their 6 constantly. That’s why they have security guards. A more armed and dangerous society requires more security guards, driving up business and labor costs. This is why Bill Hickock and the Earps prohibited carrying firearms in the towns they worked as LEOs in.

          3. Arms race. If that active shooter burst in with a FA AK or AR, your concealed carry S&W Shield ain’t gonna be enough. If mass shootings with “assault rifles” becomes the norm, then people are gonna get tired real fast of slinging their own 10.5 Noveske’s into Chipotle every damn day. That is what a war zone like Mogadishu or Aleppo looks like, not an advanced industrial civilization.

          4. A situation where average Americans MUST be armed for self-defense every day is something radically new. It was not the situation in the 80s under Reagan (or the 60s when the vast majority of Americans thought the Black Panthers were armed lunatics for openly carrying) or in the 50s under Eisenhower. Everyone carrying everywhere, any time, means the end of movie theaters, concerts, and standing in line at the Chick-fil-A with your back turned to that misfit with the SKS.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Boy, you LOVE to Straw Man an argument, no?

          Letsee…it’s late, so I’ll only hit a few high points.

          Four reasons:
          1. Liability insurance and property rights.

          Until it happens that a murdered employee’s family sues an employer into oblivion and that equation changes.

          This is not a definitive argument against “on the job carry.” Lots of employees do, and lots of employers allow it.

          Business owners will not want to be on the hook for their employee’s NDs.

          Are they now? Why would they be?

          How many on the job ND’s occur…not counting Police?

          Nice that you just assume all employees that carry are that likely to have an ND, with precisely ZERO data to actually back it up.

          Easy way out of this: Employer requires employee to sign a document saying the employee is on the hook for 100% of any damages (personal or property) if they choose to carry and have an ND. Problem solved.

          How many “Irresponsible Gun Owner” articles has TTAG written?

          So what? Most of them are numbnuts doing something with their firearm that that they shouldn’t be doing. I could claim this would be less likely in a “on the job” setting where an employee is working. You could say I’m wrong, and I’ll ask you to, once again, provide data. My speculation is just as valid as yours.

          the right to prohibit guns on their property.

          Geez, you are conflating a mess of things here.

          This is called the “Moving the Goal Post Fallacy.” You’ve gone from saying that mentally challenged people could not properly carry to now it’s a property owner’s rights issue.

          Okay, well, that property owner can just as easily ALLOW carry on his property. How in the every loving HELL is this an argument, by itself, against “employee carry?”

          there are many jobs, … where workers and employees can’t be armed.

          Another fallacy. A tautology. You assume this is true, then use it as an argument to show how it’s true.

          YOU say those employees can’t be armed at work. I say they can be.

          2. Division of labor. Think of all the jobs in which people need to focus on the work at hand and can’t be scanning their 6 constantly.

          Well, again, there’s so much wrong with this…

          First of all, we are not talking about making every employee of an organization an armed guard. The issue is simply ALLOWING those that CHOOSE to carry for personal defense…to carry.

          Secondly…EVERYONE should have enough SA to check around…at least some. But, even if I grant you this point, it does not matter. The point is, your response to “victims could not defend themselves” was that they were mentally challenged. You counterpoint does not apply to the staff.

          Every human being has the natural right to self defense. There are some among us that are physically incapable of that for a variety of reasons. Many of those trust others to care for them.

          Your answer to breaching that trust is legal horsesh1t and tactical sounding nonsense like “they are too busy in their job to check their six.”

          Right.

          A more armed and dangerous society requires more security guards, driving up business and labor costs.

          Wait, what?

          This is pure nonsense.

          So, the law abiding employee who happens to choose to carry for their own self defense (and possibly, the defense of their mentally disabled charges) makes society more dangerous?

          You simply are not paying attention to the way the world works. It’s not THAT person that is making society more dangerous.

          3. Arms race.

          Oh, here’s that canard again.

          Good grief.

          An underpowered, outgunned tool of self defense is better than NO tool of self defense.

          Are you seriously arguing that in a “active shooter” situation, it is better to be unarmed?

          If so, you are on the wrong site. Huffpoo would welcome you with open arms.

          4. A situation where average Americans MUST be armed for self-defense every day is something radically new.

          What are you talking about? Another Straw Man here?

          Who is saying people MUST be armed for self defense? We are talking about those that CHOOSE to arm themselves having the right to do so…without interference from people that come up with all kinds of lofty, esoteric sounding “principles” and “theoretical justifications” as to why they shouldn’t.

          Pointed Question 1: You are sitting at a desk in a cube farm. Gunman rushes in and opens fire. You are not hit in the opening volley.

          Do you think you are better off with immediate access to a firearm or not?

          Pointed Question 2: Who do you think has the sole moral right to make that decision for you?

          That’s all this is about…you telling someone else why they should not be armed, or them choosing for themselves if they want to be.

          That’s all it is about. Who has ‘control’ over a sovereign individual’s life choices?

        5. avatar Lucas T. Hill says:

          JR_in_NC

          >>Until it happens that a murdered employee’s family sues an employer into oblivion and that equation changes.<>YOU say those employees can’t be armed at work. I say they can be.<>Who is saying people MUST be armed for self defense? We are talking about those that CHOOSE to arm themselves having the right to do so…without interference from people that come up with all kinds of lofty, esoteric sounding “principles” and “theoretical justifications” as to why they shouldn’t.<>Secondly…EVERYONE should have enough SA to check around…at least some.<>That’s all it is about. Who has ‘control’ over a sovereign individual’s life choices?<<

          The authority to whom they make sovereign. This is Hobbes 101, the very basis of the social contract that informed our Founding Fathers. Men like George Washington who then crushed the Whiskey and Shays Rebellion to maintain the basis of American civilization. You don't know the very basis of the constitution. You can neither name the political theorist who asserted that every citizen had the right to carry at all times, nor the society he inspired. Because what you want isn't a society — it's anarchy.

        6. avatar Lucas T. Hill says:

          “Until it happens that a murdered employee’s family sues an employer into oblivion and that equation changes.”

          Ask yourself why that has NEVER happened. Then ask yourself why, legally, it can’t. You obviously don’t know the first thing about law and the constitution. Indeed, you gave yourself away with that “sovereign citizen” slip. Now I’m gonna rub your face in your ignorance:

          “YOU say those employees can’t be armed at work. I say they can be.”

          No, they can’t if their employers don’t want them to be AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT! And for very valid reasons employers don’t want their employees strapped in all sorts of jobs. Here, try this: apply for a job at Burger King and tell them you want to carry your Glock 40 with you in a Safariland holster all day. See how that works for you.

          “Who is saying people MUST be armed for self defense? We are talking about those that CHOOSE to arm themselves having the right to do so…without interference from people that come up with all kinds of lofty, esoteric sounding “principles” and “theoretical justifications” as to why they shouldn’t.”

          Because that “choice” – if indulged in by a majority of citizens – would make major societal activities and infrastructures impossible. You would know this if you ever rode the subway in a major American metropolis. Youtube the A train in NYC. So too with concerts and movie theaters, which is why firearms are prohibited in them. You cavalierly dismiss NDs, yet are forced to acknowledge how prevalent they are. Since you never ride on commercial planes, you’ve never had to think what it would be like if the majority of passengers were strapped. You’ve no idea how society works, how life works, in big cities all across the globe if you think that they work with a highly armed citizenry.

          “Secondly…EVERYONE should have enough SA to check around…at least some. But, even if I grant you this point, it does not matter.”

          It doesn’t matter because you never leave your Mom’s basement to go to a movie theater, attend a concert, or a football game. Think of all the little fights and accidents that happen routinely is such venues then add a 60% carry rate. Welcome to Mogadishu!

          Now, why do you want to arm Syed Farook? This bastard and today’s massacre is precisely what you want: more guns, more fear.

        7. avatar steel says:

          wow Lucas…
          Small penis much?
          or did they run out of tampons at the store?

    3. avatar Thadeus Plinkton says:

      Lets hope it is because if it isn’t the ‘progressives’ will really be coming after us. And hope they are not White or even Black.

      By the way black Friday set a new record for amount of guns bought as according the the FBI background checks.
      I guess I better get my order in before I need a ‘special note’ from someone.

    4. avatar Sammy^ says:

      Muslim or progressive terrorists?

      1. avatar Thadeus Plinkton says:

        They are now saying it’s 3 White guys in bold print on another site. Wearing ski mask, how would they know they are white right.
        Oh yeah, we got agenda going on.

        Watch what happens the last 6 months of O-bums term. Gun control via ‘executive privilege’.

        _______

        Update direct from police scanner:

        3 Black or Middle Eastern in tactical dress

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yup… Sounds like an Aloha Snackbar situation.

        2. avatar Thadeus Plinkton says:

          Update from police scanner:

          Possibly Hispanic as well.
          Drive a black Yukon suv.

        3. avatar Thadeus Plinkton says:

          Update from police scanner:

          Possibly Hispanic as well.
          Driving a black Yukon suv.

        4. avatar Joe says:

          Jeezlouise. They’re making tactical dresses now? 5.11 R&D has been busy.

    5. avatar William says:

      Gun Free Zone?

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Outside of a person’s home, pretty much all incorporated parts of California are gun free zones for the unwashed masses.

        “Obviously, the reason why California gun laws failed is because all the other states don’t have our gun laws because the NRA loves terrorists…” or something.

        ^^Coming to a “news op-ed” piece near you.

    6. avatar mark s. says:

      Terrorist , full auto .
      Homegrown , semi auto .

  2. avatar younggun21 says:

    Here we go. Don’t worry about Paris they said, we should worry about climate change they said, paris style attacks aren’t possible here they said.

    1. avatar Felix says:

      What is wrong with you? There was no Paris attack. Obama said so himself. No other developed nation has to endure the mass shootings that occur in the use due to our lax gun laws.

      1. avatar younggun21 says:

        Oh yeah I forgot about our dear leader’s speech of course nothing happens in any other country and we are so evil for having all of this white privilege and freedoms of self defense. Climate change is what we should be focusing on.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          The climate is changing here in WV .
          It’s getting colder .
          HELP MASTER BARRY !!!

    2. avatar Julio says:

      The terrorists have been studying up. Paris was a live-fire rehearsal for other plans. Exporting to a (gun-free) county near you. All they really need to do is keep moving around and hitting multiple locations–if they don’t have enough ‘sleepers’ already in place.
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-the-paris-attackers-honed-their-assault-through-trial-and-error/ar-AAfRGTE

      1. avatar Julio says:

        Crap! Now there ARE reports of another shooting at a shopping center. Not very far away.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          I think that was just a politician shooting his mouth off about the dangers of a well regulated militia .

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    Early reports are almost always wrong. One shooter, three shooters, long guns, pistols, body armor, terrorism, gang related, yada yada yada.

    Who knows.

    1. avatar MAC][ says:

      This just in on FNN: Initial reports suggest Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick

    2. avatar mark s. says:

      We know only one thing for sure .
      GUNS FAULT

  4. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Not good-reporting “3 WHITE MALES” doing the shooting. But I’m sure it’s a “gun-free zone”…praying.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Just came over the scanner that they are 3 MIDDLE EASTERN Males, Possible name Si’ad Farook

      Suspects are still at large…

      1. avatar Paul53 says:

        It’s the “Still at large” that worries me. All these resources concentrated in San Bernardino, and the dirt bags pop up somewhere else. Prayers sent to all at the scene.

      2. avatar Sammy^ says:

        Farook ’em all.

        1. avatar Ebby123 says:

          ..repeatedly until they drop. Then advance and Farook them twice more in the head.

          They are human waste – Terrorist or otherwise.

  5. avatar Kelly says:

    There have been no reports of deaths so far but CBS has interrupted programming and Scott Pelley is anchoring a special report in a somber, deep tone. I wonder how the networks decide when to jump into entertainment programming with their top anchors about an active shooter.

  6. avatar Farmer Tyler says:

    If it’s 3 shooters I’m more inclined to say it’s a terrorist attack. Sure hope not but I’m sure we will know by end of day.

    1. avatar Five says:

      Very strange choice of targets for terrorist though. An obvious choice if it was a lone crazy, but multiple crazies working together? Odd choice for a criminal gang (is there anything to rob at that type of facility). Drug traffickers?

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        It is totally sick but shooting up a place like this, as apolitical as it is, sends the terrorist message that no one is safe more effectively than shooting up a government or military facility.

        1. avatar Five says:

          Well, Islam does have something against the “developmentally challenged” and it is likely that the police response to that area would be much slower than to something like a mall, and it was likely a gun free zone, so yeah, maybe the place does makes sense as a terrorist target.

        2. avatar Julio says:

          Unfortunately, terrorists are hoping to terrorize.
          Govt/Military facility = “legitimate” target
          Hospital-type with helpless/innocents = more suffering & BIG bang for the buck
          which also strikes at the core of our “public safety” perception provided by our Govt.

        3. avatar Kendahl says:

          Shooting up a gun free zone with no effective security is easy. What’s sickening is that the targets were people inherently unable to defend themselves. To plant the idea that no one is beyond their reach, terrorists have to successfully attack a secure, well defended facility.

    2. avatar younggun21 says:

      Who knows could be anything. Reports range from no confirmed deaths, to 20-40 victims, to 10-20 and so on and so forth. There are some that say 1 shooter others that say up to three. Some speculate long guns and others have no comment. We won’t know until the situation is over with.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Frank Reynolds , ” Reagan is dead ! ” Get it right people .

    3. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      I have to agree – if it’s correct that there were three people with body armor + rifles, attacking a *hospital* for the *developmentally disabled*, it’s a terrorist attack, with the objective to generate as high a body count as possible. Regardless of the political motivation, the tactic used is pretty clear.

      1. avatar JackieO says:

        Roger that JP.

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    Long guns?? 20 to 40 victims???

    Hold on a sec while I order as many AKs and AR’s as I can online.

    1. avatar AJ says:

      But wait, having bullet button equipped long guns with 10 round mags makes it unpossible to have so many victims in a shooting. That’s what they said when they passed those laws.

  8. avatar R Hampton says:

    Currently, nearly 670 Inland Regional Center staff members provide services to more than 30,200 people with developmental disabilities and their families in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

    Who would target such a place? This is seriously f*cked-up.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Crazy psychos – like people who would shoot up little children in a school.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Not many “crazy psychos” wearing masks and similar clothing. Who would attack an indoor rock concert That’s right, terrorists looking for a barrel full of easy victims.

    2. avatar Don says:

      Because these targets are soft and they are out to commit the maximum amount of murder they can.

  9. avatar Julio says:

    The three shooters have reported escaped in a Black SUV. There may be an explosive device still inside. All First Responders have withdrawn and Bomb Squad is sending in a robot. Still developing….

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    This is all because the NSA had to stop bulk collection of phone data on Sunday.
    Damn us all for not embracing totalitarianism!!! Damn us all!!!!

  11. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    My mom is an RN at the Hospital that are receiving some of the victims. I called her the moment I heard and she had to go mid call because of it. Rough stuff.

  12. avatar Jose says:

    Even if it was a terrorist attack, Obama will re-label it “workplace violence”.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Unless it’s a white right-wing male behind the spree killing. Then it will absolutely be a terrorism.

      Here’s a table for your reference:
      Islamic male + shooting Army base = work place violence
      Islamic brothers + bombing public event = terrorism, but not Islamic terrorism
      Many Islamic Males + shooting and bombing entire city = terrorism, but not Islamic terrorism (solution: ban guns.)
      Non-Islamic White Male + shooting at Planned Parenthood = Terrorism
      White Male, any religious denomination + NRA Membership = Terrorism

      1. avatar CZ Guy says:

        This is perfect. With your permission may I use this ?

  13. avatar K says:

    Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      My first thought every time I see the words “active shooter” as well.

      1. avatar JTwig says:

        mine too, followed by “is it real, or a setup”.

  14. avatar Wade Garret says:

    CNN is already blaming the NRA and saying Obama is planning to make a statement soon. They are throwing out crazy stats on mass shootings, changing the number of dead/wounded, and number of suspects.

  15. avatar Bobing says:

    Can we just not get through the rest of the fucking year without this shit making headline news and our freedoms being threatened AGAIN?

  16. avatar Roscoe says:

    Who needs facts; another shooting incident.

    ‘When will we stop this. If only the Republicans in Congress would act on my “common sense” gun control measures we could do something about all this senseless killing.’

    I can hear our imperial leader harping on his failed platitudes already. Shoot, maybe he’ll try to link it to global warming for a double header.

  17. avatar gsnyder says:

    Sadly we know it will be politicized by Obama. Now saying 3 “shooter” have escaped. Home terrorism or gang stuff on gun free area.

  18. avatar Sammy^ says:

    Damn global warming!

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      I often find myself contemplating mass shooting a kindergarten school after long dry spells and then too much rain , it could be weather related , right ?
      Satire NSA satire .

  19. avatar Jwestham2 says:

    Can’t be an assault weapon. They’re already banned in California.

  20. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Oh well, ban guns then…..more, again. It’s the answer, because banning guns will cause the people who want to harm us, not harm us.

    Excuse me while I puke before Obama utters another comment. It’s like a preemptive puking.

    1. avatar Julio says:

      From Hitlery’s Twitter: “I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now.”
      via MSN, of course.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I agree, we must take action to stop gun violence now. And that action would be removing all barriers to citizens carrying firearms in ALL public locations. Armed citizens would literally be everywhere, unlike the police.

      2. avatar mark s. says:

        Hey Hillary , we are going to take action this election cycle and boot the progressive erks like you , back into the holes you’ve crawled out of . We are going to put a strong constitutional God fearing man back behind the desk your husband stained and fix the mess all you 60s hippies have made of this once great Republic . We are going to roll power back into the states and dismantle most of the big government programs you’ve been pushing onto us for a hundred years . We are going to fix the Federal tax debacle and rejuvenate the potential of the working people of America and dismantle the anti-family machine that is coming from DC . We are going to instill the work ethic and devalue the reliance on Government , we are going to move three steps forward by stepping back .
        We are going to put Ted Cruz in as our man of the people and for the people .

  21. avatar George Walsh says:

    Just said over scanner 2-3 “Hispanic or middle eastern males”‘ in black GMC SUV.

  22. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Hang on for a rough ride.
    This could get very bad for us freedom lovers.
    Making a mental checklist of what I need…

  23. avatar S_Domini says:

    Seriously, what is wrong with so many of you people? This is a horrible incident that is still happening / unfolding and all you want to do take cheap pot shots at our President and cry and whine and “your” gun rights?

    “Whaaaaaa, better stock up on my 30rd mags waaaaaaaa!!!”

    Get over yourselves for just one minute. Innocent people are dead out there.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      F- you. We’ll say whatever we damn well please.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      I’m open to hearing your ideas on what it would take to stop events such as this one.

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        I’m not even talking about solutions. I’m talking about empathy. Can’t we put the rhetoric on hold for just a minute and send prayers to the families of victims and survivors of these horrific events?

        1. avatar Model 31 says:

          Empathy is fine, but their families can’t feel our empathy, nor are they interested in how this will affect gun owners in the future. We all wish this had not happened for a number of reasons. The talk of stocking up and all is a reaction to the never ending exploitation of these murders to further an agenda of more control of things our politicians do not like. Unfortunately, this has already started as well.

        2. avatar pod says:

          Most have already stated their empathy. The irony of the situation is that the supposed more-empathetic Democratic party is already spouting off the usual “blame the gun” nonsense.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          Thoughts and Prayers, hm?

          https://imgur.com/a/DW6O2

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          Excuse me, but I must have missed Obama, Hillary, and Feinstein et all putting away their rhetoric. Those statists are pouncing on this incident to attack the NRA and legitimate gun ownership, despite this shooting occurring in a state that already has some of the worst gun laws in the nation. Those laws were alleged to prevent incidents like this. We were “sold” that these gun laws would keep us safe.

          Further, many here could actually be more helpful stopping a mass shooter with their own firearm versus most people who will just run, hide, or dial 911. The rhetoric is already out there, bud. I don’t accept my responsible car ownership being conflated with drunk drivers, nor do I accept my responsible gun ownership being conflated with being a mass shooter or a terrorist.

          Anti-gun scumbags will use this incident to assault my legitimate freedoms before the bodies of the defenseless victims are cold. Meanwhile, Obama and company stay safe behind their armed security details. My thoughts, prayers and condolences to the victims. That doesn’t change the fact that the next fight will be against all gun owners as Democrat politicians try to blame responsible gun owners for this horrific attack.

          I keep it simple: blame the murderers.

    3. avatar George Walsh says:

      You mean acting like the president and gun control groups in this country do every chance they get?

      Is the president on the podium calling for gun control yet or is he slow to react to this one?

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        So why not be the bigger man or woman?

        The comments here are just so cynical, self absorbed and banal.

        1. avatar George says:

          Which is why I don’t do things like that. I am above it. Too bad most of the left isn’t.

        2. avatar Katy says:

          Decrying the expected political response, while cynical and out of keeping with taking time to focus on the events, is generally a knee jerk response to the expected similar actions from the other side (which undoubtedly thinks the same thing, creating an arms race to be the first to address the media).

          As for the personal response, NY and other states have shown that they are willing to aggressively pass legislation to restrict that which was once legal, and do so during what you reasonably point out should be a cooling off period. I have more than a year before I need to worry about the local legislature passing some sort of scary weapon restriction, but I’m still wary of a presidential response which would create restrictions – possibly leveraging this to issue an EO that would be endlessly litigated.

          As it is, I’m curious to see if any action would be rationally based or not. I can buy a scary gun in .308 and I can buy a rechambered and refinished Garand in .308. I fully expect him to try and ban the former while leaving the latter. Which makes no sense at all.

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Well Hitlery and Obonzo are not letting this opportunity go to waste, they are all over this doing somersaults and hand stands for gun control.

    4. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

      I know it’s a horrible incident that’s still unfolding. I know innocent lives have just been taken, but I also know this will instantly be politicized and I won’t be given much time to process this event, mourn the loss of fellow humans, or begin to get over the event before it is politicized.

      I won’t speak for everyone, so this is only my experience. I understand you, and I agree this isn’t a time to be selfish, but it’s hard not to be when I know what’s coming right around the corner – another push against my individual, unalienable right to defend myself with arms.

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        Thank you for your polite response. I think I’ve said my piece below.

    5. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      He ceased being “My President” a long time ago.

      And until they get all the facts from the scene verified, I’m not holding back. We already have several President nominees politicizing this event anyways.

    6. avatar Five says:

      You mean we shouldn’t be tweeting things like “I refuse to accept this as normal, we must do something about gun violence.” Like our esteemed former Secretary of State and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton just did?

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        I don’t like that either and never said it’s right.

        But recognizing that this is just so wrong and must stop is certainly more humane than blaming “homosexual” politicians like Chris T below.

        1. avatar Five says:

          Some of the cynicism you are seeing here is directed at a government that is not only failing at protecting it’s citizen, but also actively attempting to deny them tools to protect themselves.

          So yeah, it is unseemly, but you also can look at it as a black humor coping mechanism. (Ask a few Russian, black humor like this was distilled into an art form under the Soviet Union)

        2. avatar Five says:

          And yes, I don’t know why Chris T is upset about Tom Ammiano being homosexual. Honestly, that politician’s sexuality is probably the only non-offensive thing about him.

        3. avatar Fuque says:

          Just how much empathy is the rest of the country supposed to muster up for a group of people who keep voting their rights away?. Maybe victims need to look at family members for their answers..It’s no different than any other gun free zone San Bernadino, meet Chicago….. Im certainly not surprised.

    7. avatar some dude says:

      Nothing’s the matter with them. Vague news of a tragic situation unfolding in a place that’s remote to almost all of them and you get the notion that they should all adopt somber tones and be sympathetic. No reason for them to consider the actual likely ramifications that will in fact matter to them, right? They’ve gotta get their butts into grief mode and genuflect so they don’t look like people that don’t give a hell about the dead. Well they don’t have to to be good Americans.

      They don’t because nobody in that building means as much to some of them as our collective rights and freedom. Watching the political-legal-media complex sensationalize real tragedy’s which are not anything more than criminal acts that gun rights advocates can play scapegoat for they can predict the coming attempts at eroding those freedoms and curtailing those rights. That’s a real problem that doesn’t just affect 20 or 40 or how ever many victims of crime, it affects 380 million freedom loving, rights enjoying citizens.

      I’m sure that your heart bleeds for the victims and you think you’re being a good person. My circulatory system does not suffer from that malfunction and I’m glad that it doesn’t to some others too. Makes me think not everyone has their own personal rectal-cranial inversion. I personally won’t grieve for someone I’ve never met, it’d be disingenuous at best and it does not a single person any bit of actual good. Fighting the good fight for my rights and the future of my country, that seems to me like a better use of my time.

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        Ohhh burrnnnn, such an ice cold alpha male!

        For the record, I work about 25 minutes away from the shooting today. This is not an abstract. I’ll I’ve heard for the last 2 hours is sirens.

        And I know you are a red blooded, bad to the bone “real” American, but do you really, honestly believe you and your CCW could have stopped this shooting today?

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Oh look, a thread. I guess I’d better pull it.

          So then, good White Knight, might you have, among those unquestionably productive, effectual thoughts and prayers of yours, any ideas for what would stop these sorts of atrocities? Don’t hold back; you’re clearly morally and intellectually superior to us unwashed, so we already know that whatever ideas you suggest couldn’t possibly be stupid.

          Let the enlightening… begin.

        2. avatar Julio says:

          Most of the commentators here would say that the option to carry should be available in order to prevent this kind of attack. Some may claim to be able to dispatch one–maybe two shooters. I think the key argument will be that everyone at this location were NOT given the option to protect themselves. Even returning inaccurate/covering fire would slow or distract the shooter(s) enough to make a difference and possibly allow others to get away.

        3. avatar S_Domini says:

          Hi Julio,

          thank you for your response. I absolutely get what you are saying and agree that even off target shots would without a doubt make the shooters pause – and maybe even retreat. But, that is best case scenario. There are so many variables that can go terribly wrong that I don’t see how giving Karen in accounting a Glock 19 is the answer.

          And what is the end game there? Everyone is packing and ready to pop at the first sign of threat? As I said in another post, that seems to me the death of civic society in America.

          I don’t want to live somewhere where I need to live and work in a combative state. I mean really, do we really want to send our kids to school where teachers are cocked and locked and learning room clearing exercise along with child psychology? That seems very sad to me.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          ” There are so many variables that can go terribly wrong that I don’t see how giving Karen in accounting a Glock 19 is the answer.”

          So, that’s it then, I guess. S_Domini does not see how giving Karen in accounting a firearm is the answer, so it must not be the answer.

          Except…who really cares if you can “see” how it’s the answer? It’s not for you to decide if Karen has a firearm. It’s for Karen to decide that. For herself. As a sovereign, independent being, only she has the moral basis for that decision…not you, and certainly not the government.

          And, no one is talking about “giving Karen in accounting” a firearm. That’s Statists thinking, pure and simple.

          No. The point is allowing, legally and without assumed moral high ground criticisms from people like you, Karen to choose for herself if she wants to carry a firearm.

          Continue on with your self righteous commentary, though. It is entertaining.

        5. avatar S_Domini says:

          JR_in_NC

          Thank you for your post. Even though you’ve twisted my words and almost completely missed the underlying point, I have to agree that you make a very good point about personal choice. Yes, “Karen” has the right to make that choice for herself.

          But as it stands now, there is nothing in our laws that says once Karen makes that choice, that she be vetted and trained in the use of that weapon. Again, there are too many variables and it is plain as day that the status quo is failing.

          Getting high powered weapons and ammunition is just far too easy in this country and even though I know that “my” guns will never be used in a crime, I’m willing to except that things cannot keep going as they are. I had a flight out of LAX the day after the shooting of the TSA agent there. Today I was working at a clients office not 25 minutes from this shooting. This is real. There are mass shootings everyday and I would hope that the gun owning community would have a little more introspection and say, “ok, enough is enough. This has to stop.”

          The only consistent response of the gun owning community is “more guns” but that is sad to me. I don’t want to live in Somalia or Honduras or see my kid’s teachers armed like SWAT.

        6. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Sorry, but I didn’t twist your words. I quoted them directly.

          ““ok, enough is enough. This has to stop.””

          Where have I read that before.

          Let’s turn this around.

          Why can’t WE say “enough is enough”? Why can’t we say enough attacks on individual Constitutional Rights is enough? Why can’t we say enough crime is enough?

          Limiting access to and ownership of guns is not stopping anything. How can you explain that areas with the strictest gun control have the highest violent crime rates, and areas with lesser gun control have relatively lower violent crime rates…in general?

          You think guns and access to “high power” guns and ammunition is the cause of human violence?

          Your comments read like a rabid anti-gunner…limit access to the evil inanimate object that lacks agency and intelligence and the world would be a better place is a philosophy so provably false it simply boggles the mind the notion continues to be repeated.

          Question: How many guns were used during the Rwanda Genocide?

        7. avatar S_Domini says:

          Ok, first, I’m not rabid anti-gun and I would like to continue this conversation without these base and dismissive statements. I am a gun owner and a gun lover. Shooting is fun and I’m good at it. I grew up grouse and pheasant hunting in Washington and would like to teach my boys how to shoot.

          But these mass shootings – whether gang / drug / lone wolf / right-wing / Islamist inspired – are out of control. You have to be blind to not see that.

          Second point, high crime rates are generally (and that is a loose generally) concentrated in high population areas with high poverty rates. Those places have done what they could to limit access to guns because guns are used when guns are available. That is a fact. Other developed nations don’t have these problems because they don’t have such easy access to guns. Chicago can pass strict gun laws but Indiana has almost none, so it’s easy for guns to move across state lines. Which is why something on a national level needs to be done. I don’t know what that is and I hope we can come up with a solution that avoids a forced buy-back like in OZ.

          To the third point, please play the zero gun control scenario out for me. And I’m being sincere with this. What does this country look like to you without any gun control laws? No bans on automatic weapons No bans on open carry. No more “gun free” zones. The Fed reverses any and all gun control laws.

          So what does that look like on a day to day basis? Do you see a better society if everyone is carrying a Bushmaster over their shoulder? Do you see less murder and less shootings? Again, I’m being 100% sincere.

          And remember that everyone gets the same access now. So that hot tempered hood in the south side of Chicago gets to buy an AK on his 18th birthday. The guys down at the mosque all have their AKs too.

          Where does it stop and how do we keep it from ending up looking like a 3rd world war zone?

        8. avatar CarlosT says:

          You do realize you’ve described the situation as it essentially is in several states, right? No one has zero restrictions, but there are states that come close and for the most part, there really aren’t that many issues. People posting here from places such as Alaska, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming seem to like living there and they haven’t given the impression that it’s like Mogadishu there. I don’t know, maybe other commenters can set me straight if I’ve gotten the wrong impression.

    8. avatar Wiregrass says:

      I don’t know how often you frequent TTAG, but mass shootings, defense against and prevention are a well discussed topic around here. On one thing we are generally in agreement on is that restricting the right to carry, the establishment of gun free zones, and banning weapons are ineffective measures and counter to stopping these events. These are well established features of California’s gun laws so no one is shocked that they continue. In fact we expect these shootings to continue in these places until these gun control measures are lifted. So the discussion quickly moves from causes to effects.

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        Thank you for your measured response. I used to visit TTAG a lot more but with every mass shooting – and subsequent profiteering by the gun industry – is turning me off to the sport.

        The state of CA is doing what they can, but CA has no control over the laws of its neighbors. Same with Chicago.

        As a life-long shooter and gun owner I previously held the same beliefs as many here. But at some point we have to recognize that guns ARE the problem and more guns is not the answer. I want to believe that America is a great country. A civic country of ideas. If everyone needs to carry an AK just to feel safe from their neighbors than that is the death of a civic society. Have you ever visited a place where there are guns everywhere? Like Honduras? Nothing about that feels safer.

        And I’ve lived in Europe where, without doubt, a person feels so, so much safer and that is solely due to the fact that the access to guns is severely limited.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Well, never mind the thread. It looks like the curtain unraveled all by itself.

          It’s just another Fudd, folks. Move along, nothing to see here.

        2. avatar Fuque says:

          Why no outrage over the 117 people dying everyday behind the wheel?.. you drive a car right?.. as a fellow driver im sure you must dwell each and every day over the over 800 people slaughtered each and everyday on our nations highways… yet, somehow, 14 people shot in CA get pushed to the head of the crowd…

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          And I’ve lived in Europe where, without doubt, a person feels so, so much safer and that is solely due to the fact that the access to guns is severely limited.
          ….such as Switzerland, Austria, Czech, Slovenia or Poland?

        4. avatar Silver says:

          Oh, great, another soulless Fudd. Even worse than the gungrabbers, Fudd fascists pretend to be on the side of gun rights just so they can sabotage it. Like a German family in the 1930s who had lots of Jewish friends, but then pointed them out when the SS came.

        5. avatar CZ Guy says:

          “And I’ve lived in Europe where, without doubt, a person feels so, so much safer and that is solely due to the fact that the access to guns is severely limited.”

          I’m calling troll here….its evident you have never been to Eroupe…

        6. avatar Accur81 says:

          As a lifelong shooter and fun owner, I say you’re full of sh!t. Blame murderers for murder, not the tool (if any) they hold in their hands. Hope Moms Demand Action paid you well, and thanks for playing.

        7. avatar Accur81 says:

          (Damn edit function is broken again. I meant to say gun owner.)

        8. avatar S_Domini says:

          Haha, why do you think I’m trolling or lying about living in Europe? Do I need to email you pictures of my passport?

          It is wholly possible to be a gun owner but believe that things have gone too far and that the access to – and ownership of – military weapons and handguns is not a net positive to our society.

        9. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “It is wholly possible to be a gun owner but believe that things have gone too far and that the access to – and ownership of – military weapons and handguns is not a net positive to our society.”

          The very definition of Fudd.

    9. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      You think the p-mags and all the rest are just our little toys we fear losing? Buddy, they’re the tools that stand between the peaceful prosperity we enjoy, and the freedoms we risk losing. You have everything backwards, pal.

      When fascism comes to America, it’ll be via Presidential executive order, not an Ayatollah’s fatwa.

      1. avatar S_Domini says:

        I own guns. Several guns. I grew up with guns. I grew up with hunting and am a dead shot walking skeet. I love guns and I love shooting guns.

        But in no way do I associate me having a .45 and 12g as the sole source of my freedom. That is a myth that has become dogma for a small percentage of Americans. I know you think you are in the majority, but 80-something % of Americans want stricter gun control laws.

        And I hate to break it to you but Fascism IS coming to this country and it’s wearing a “Make America Great” hat.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Well goddamn, he knows two very common and frequently referenced firearm chamberings! Everyone, stop what you’re doing and bow down to the wisdom of our new doyen!

          What should we ban to solve the gun violence epidemic, O White Knight? Which doors must we kick down to help you feel safe?

        2. avatar Fuque says:

          Bet you cherish your 1st A right to post on this site tho…. The 2A makes sure you have that right…

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I know you think you are in the majority, but 80-something % of Americans want stricter gun control laws.
          The question did not state for more background checks, just background checks, if that is what you are referencing.

        4. avatar Former Water Walker says:

          Pathetic attempt at trolling new guy(gal?)…you need to up your game…

        5. avatar ThomasR says:

          S_Domini.

          So you are so much safer in europe with all those gun laws?

          Are you Crazy? This is,a serious question.

          Are you crazy?

          You know, the Paris massacre? There was over a hundred people massacred there just recently. With more restrictive gun laws than California

          Charlie Hebdo?

          The guy in Sweden that murdered over a hundred people on that Island with his .223 s3mo auto rifle?

          Some of the largest school massacres have happened in europe.

          No, you answered my question.

          You are crazy.

        6. avatar S_Domini says:

          Troll? How am I trolling? You think I’m lying about being a gun owner?

          I currently own a Glock 21c with talon’s on the grip and Trijicons up top. I’ve had a 228 in 9, a 229r in .40, and two USPs – full size and c – both in .40. For my scattergun I’ve got a SPX930 stock. There, is that enough gun talk for you?

          Like I said, I like shooting and I like guns. But I have enough common sense to know that my little .45 isn’t stopping Obama and the blue helmets from putting freedom lovers in FEMA camps. That’s absurd on so many levels.

          And someone please tell me how to stop mass shootings without resorting to “more guns” or “only way to stop a bad guy blah blah blah”

        7. avatar CZ Guy says:

          Because eroupe is not safer than the USA. Been there many times, and again, I say you never have. Sure, post pics of your passport online….go ahead…troll

        8. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “And I hate to break it to you but Fascism IS coming to this country and it’s wearing a “Make America Great” hat.”

          Leftist Progressive hogwash.

          Statism and Progressive Elitism is destroying this country.

          I don’t care if you own a couple of guns. You are a Statist…complete with the “CA is doing what it can, but it’s the other state’s faults” horse crap.

          CA is broken in every way measurable, and it ain’t the “Make America Great” crowd that did it. Ditto NY, ditto Chicago, ditto NJ…

        9. avatar Jay Williams says:

          “my little .45 isn’t stopping Obama and the blue helmets from putting freedom lovers in FEMA camps”

          That is precisely what the Second Amendment will do!!!

    10. avatar William says:

      You must be lost. This is gun blog. Go to Huffpo to share your feelings with other useful idiots.

    11. avatar Silver says:

      The left has declared war on innocent Americans’ rights. We don’t have the luxury of not being jaded because we know that every incident like this will result in a threat on our natural rights. It’s not pretty, but that’s how it is. Once the left decides to be human, we can be again too.

  24. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    Wonder what the vests will turn out to be. If they’re bullet resistant, or plate carriers with armor plates, then that bill they (I don’t remember who) were trying to pass to ban the sales of body armor may again see light/gain traction.

    This sucks, hope the cops get the perpetrators.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      They will call it ‘body armor’ repeatedly and never publish any sort of retraction when they turn out to be basic load bearing vests.

      1. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

        You’re probably right. Facts have never gotten in their way before, and it won’t stop now. Heck, it could be black fisher-men’s vests, and they would still probably call to restrict body armor.

  25. avatar William says:

    Gun Free Zone?

  26. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Well how about that extra 10 days you get to wait to get your one gun a month in cali!!!
    Say thank you to the wonderful homosexual law maker Tom Ammiano who wrote the law that governor Moonbeam signed.
    Never forget you got your Marijuana intoxication to fall back on to ease your pain.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Let you in on a little secret there, chris. I don’t smoke weed or johnsons. And I live in CA. As do a great many other gun owners like me. When you go on these mindless rants like this you sound like one of those aloha snackbar imams.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        It will all be the Libertarian’s fault.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Damned liberterians. They walk among us.

        2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Indiana Tom
          Libertarians and liberals put people like Tom Ammiano into office. Because their sex position was more important than their position on the second amendment.
          Just as intolerant voters keep Jim crow law makers in office in the south. They also past laws taking rights away from people.

          I was born and raised in Sacramento. I know California very well. That is why I moved out. Civil rights are being lost in the west coast states. In the bible belt southern former slave Jim crow states, gun civil rights are stronger for everyone than liberal California.
          The times have changed.

      2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        As a California voter did you knowingly vote for anti gun civil right homosexuals like Tom Ammiano?
        Is their sex activity more important than their political position on the constitution?

  27. The government and the press should come out and say this is a false flag and no one was killed so the conspiracy theorists can say the opposite and actually report the truth for once.

  28. avatar ArtM says:

    Wag the dog.

  29. avatar AnOregonian says:

    THIS is why I tell people to never complain about a slow news day in the gun world.

  30. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    SWAT dispatched to second location now.

  31. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Officer down reports coming across scanner

  32. avatar Kenshinwulf says:

    Wait for the new label:

    “WHITE MUSLIM”

    Really, I have no idea what’s going on.

    I’m sorry for the victims, that’s all.

  33. avatar Chaotic_Good says:

    If I had to guess I’d say the reports of multiple shooters, long guns and fatigues are just witnesses confusing SWAT team members for the killer. The same thing happened at the DC Navy Yard.

  34. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Latest I saw: The shooters attacked a Christmas party in a conference room rented out at the facility. They were County employees, it seems. That they attacked an event at a rented room suggests a specific connection. Drug cartel hit on County employees? Who knows.

  35. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Duck and cover! It’s BOHICA time again, with fallout that will head to the furthest corners of the globe.

    Talk about a “perfect storm”.

    Close to Christmas. Helpless victims. Gun Free Zone? Evil assault weapons, allegedly.

    All check.

    It almost appears to be too perfect.

  36. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Someway, somehow, this will all be the NRA’s or Indiana’s fault.

    1. avatar CZ Guy says:

      Let’s not forget it could left wing extremists furthering their agenda.

  37. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Not enough reliable information to make any judgements but if does turn out to be terrorists I urge everyone to write to their Congressman and demand that impeachment articles be drawn up charging the President with deriliction of duty.

    The Democrats will not convict but this is serious enough to make it the dominant issue for next year’s campaign.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Oh heck, I did that years ago.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        The time wasn’t right long ago. If this is an attack then the time is right now.

  38. avatar JackieO says:

    ” we can send in a team, take everybody out and be gone before the echo fades”. Sounds like a team to me. Watching and waiting.

  39. avatar JackieO says:

    Followup, I don’t mean our guys for you false flag dudes.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      I hate to get all tin foil hat but I wouldn’t be at all surprised by a false flag event with a lame-duck president who’s not fundamentally changing our nation as fast as he’d like.

  40. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    Just saw that ATF is on the scene to “help”.

    Fast and Furious 2 anyone?

  41. avatar Don says:

    san bernadino system 10 has a lot of activity at this moment:

    http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/12443/web

    1. avatar Don says:

      shots fired, requesting a bearcat, chasing a guy, male dark skinned. lots of yelling for swat team, guy in helicopter, partner armed with M4

    2. avatar Don says:

      calling in medical aid, bearcat on the way… Officer down, rescue helicopter wants to extract…

    3. avatar Don says:

      bearcat getting ready to dismount. teams positioning such that they avoid a cross fire situation.

    4. avatar Don says:

      Dude in the back seat of the van/truck, still breathing, “AR strapped to his chest”

  42. avatar COtto says:

    “in pursuit of the subject vehicle” Black Ford Expedition with Utah Plates;
    shots fired

    http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/8710/web

  43. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Sounds like a single shooter. Never trust eyewitnesses. Disgruntle [ex]employee?

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      Scratch that.

      The target and number of actors makes no sense to me.

  44. avatar CZ Guy says:

    Fox news reporting a Muslim name was released? Any info?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email