Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Fourteen People Left Dead in San Bernardino Shooting



     Today, 335 days into this year, we had our 355th shooting of the year. At around 11 AM this morning during a holiday party, multiple shooters entered a large conference room in the Inland Regional Center of San Bernardino, a facility that serves people with developmental disabilities, and opened fire. Fourteen people were killed and at least seventeen were wounded.

     San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said that, after police arrived to search a Redlands residence, the suspects fled but were pursued back into San Bernardino.

     After a car chase and firefight, the police shot and killed two suspects, a man and a woman, dressed in "assault-style clothing" and detained a third person running from the car. During the firefight, the suspects threw pipe bombs and other hand-made explosives at the police and one officer was wounded but is expected to recover.

     Their motive is unclear but it appears that they had a specific target in the building. David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles field office, questions: "Is this a terrorist incident? We do not know."

     Families were told to wait outside of the Hernandez Community Center as a meet-up place for survivors to contact their families.

Note: This is still going on while I type this. This link is a live update published by the Los Angeles Times.

What is your opinion on the following questions:
     - The calendar on the side of this post details how many shootings there have been per day this year. Do you think this is reason to increase gun safety laws? Why or why not?
     - Do you consider this a domestic terrorist incident?

Sources:
Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html and http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-up-to-20-shot-in-san-bernardino-active-shooter-sought-20151202-story.html
CNN (Video): http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/
New York Times (Video): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-respond-reports-active-shooter-san-bernardino/story?id=35535995
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/
YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/UrEKcI5hZ3I

6 comments:

Jared Mayerson said...

Feel free to click the image of the calendar to enlarge it.

Alex Binsacca said...

Given the surprising statistics I would have to say this is a reason to amend the 2nd amendment. However we have to do it in such a way that doesn't make the american people too unhappy, because as it turns out recent polls show that the citizens of the United States are very passionate when it comes to the right to bear arms. The only way I can really think of doing that is to increase background checks on the individuals who are purchasing the fire arms.

On the grounds on whether I think this was a domestic terrorist attack, I would have to disagree. The being as stated in the article it appears that the group only had one primary target. Therefore, I would have to say that this was more of plot to get revenge or some sort of an alternative motive.

Tara Young said...

I agree with Alex. The very high statistics leave concern for the public's safety. I'm still on the fence about if the 2nd amendment rights should be amended. On one hand, the safety of innocent people is very important, but if you take away their accessibility to the ability to protect themselves with their own firearms, it could lead to even more deaths. Since people are attacking others with firearms, they are not law abiding citizens, so they will obtain firearms if they wanted to despite the restrictions. I don't think it was a domestic terrorist attack, but it is worrisome that they would attack a high ranking FBI personnel, depending on their motives.

Huayu Ouyang said...

I do think that this is a reason to have more gun safety laws to make it harder to obtain guns, as both of the shooters were able to legally obtain semi-automatic rifles even in California, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, meaning that in other states it is even easier to get assault weapons and other guns. Furthermore, they were able to obtain high-capacity magazines, which are illegal in California, either by illegally modifying the guns, or just by going to a neighboring state like Arizona and buying them there. In addition, current gun laws do not prohibit someone buying a gun for someone else who perhaps wouldn't be able to get a gun, as "Mr. Farook bought two pistols legally and that another person bought the two .223-caliber rifles — a DPMS A-15 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 — legally." Furthermore, currently, even people on the no-fly list can buy guns in America.

It also appears to be more of a domestic terrorist attack as more details are being uncovered. The FBI found that Tasheen Malik declared her allegiance to ISIS on Facebook right before the shooting occurred, but they don't know their exact motives yet. I don't think this means that ISIS necessarily supported or was behind this attack, but it probably means that Malik was inspired by ISIS. It also doesn't seem to be out of revenge, even though there was apparently an argument at the holiday party they were at, because the FBI found that they tried to erase their electronic footprints and destroy some cellphones in the days before.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-calls-gun-law-calif-shooting-article-1.2453370
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-gun-laws-san-bernardino_56606dd8e4b079b2818d7034
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Cami Nemschoff said...

i think that this shooting, and all other mass shootings, call for stricter gun regulations. This very interesting article shows how those responsible for recent mass shootings purchased their guns.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Although the suspects in the San Bernadino shooting were not the ones to actually purchase the guns, the person that did did so legally. If you notice, in the article pretty much all of the shooters purchased their guns legally even if they had criminal pasts. I think background checks on people purchasing guns is something that should be extremely enforced and regulated. The fact that people with criminal records and mental disorders are legally allowed to purchase guns is something that should be changed.

Jared Mayerson said...

Thank you all for your comments! Alex and Tara, initially it was believed that they had a target but that was unconfirmed. Now, President Obama is calling this a "terrorist attack." Do you still not agree with him? Huayu, you made an interesting point about how the shooters were able to get guns here in California with the strictest laws in the country. Cami, do you think background checks are effective if people, like the shooters, use other people's guns?