Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Are you ok with Muslim refugees moving in next to you in the US?
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/
xy5jn0
New Member
And that means he can't be Muslim Terrorist?
Lol, yup. They trained someone just to shoot up a disability center.
If you manage to keep it up, you're on par for this year's Darwin award. PS: when are you going to accept my proposal?
xy5jn0
New Member
I can't accept your proposal. I'm to traumatized by you calling me an idiot. I'm texting from my local college "Safe zone" so you can't say hurtful things to me. You big meanie.Lol, yup. They trained someone just to shoot up a disability center.
PS: when are you going to accept my proposal?
But if you did accept I could put you on my insurance and we can seek treatment for you. The safe zone never stopped me from saying hurtful things but if it makes you feel better I'm for it
I like how they even mention that lmao. What does a beard and the way he dresses have anything to do with this?! And notice how so many articles say he was so normal then before he killed all these people he became more religious like wtf. Its almost like they want people to fear religious Muslims when once again, Islam has nothing to do with these attacks....Trump and his campaigners are probably loving this. All this xenophobia will make more people vote for him (oh wait our votes dont even matter...).
San Bernardino has been a PR disaster for Obama's Islam narrative and the left are absolutely suicidal today. It's killing them and they're doing everything humanly possible to avoid admitting the obvious: This attack was Islamic terror.
But the jig is up. The left aren't going to win this fight; it's a bridge too far. The people know what they see with their own eyes and they know what the shooters' motive was. Liberals who are still sticking to the narrative today not only look silly, they prove just how dangerous they are. And that danger is going to become increasingly apparent as these attacks keep coming. Allahu Fuckbar.
Federal agents investigating possible terrorism link in San Bernardino mass shooting
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...k-san-bernardino-shooting-20151203-story.html
Doug SmithContact Reporter
Federal officials widened their probe Thursday into a possible terrorist motivation for Wednesday’s San Bernardino shooting rampage, sorting through computer records, tracking the travels of the shooting suspects and interviewing others the two spoke to in recent days.
A senior federal government official said agents believe suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, was in contact with a small number of people authorities suspect are extremists. The official said agents have picked up indications he “communicated” with at least one individual that U.S. law enforcement officials were monitoring as a potential terrorism suspect.
The official, briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly, said agents believe Farook’s connection to a potential terrorism suspect in this country might be someone he knew only tangentially.
But the source said the connection is enough to suggest there might be a “deeper terror matrix” behind the San Bernardino attacks, rather than simply workplace violence.
The official declined to provide more details about the potential terrorism suspect under surveillance in the U.S., except to add that the individual has not been charged in this country and that agents are still evaluating the relationship.
San Bernardino, California, Massacre Suspects Could Have Terror Links
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sa...g-suspects-left-baby-daughter-grandma-n473261
But authorities told NBC News on Thursday that Farook appeared to have been radicalized. They said he had been in touch with people in the Los Angeles area who have expressed jihadist-oriented views.
Intelligence sources told NBC News that Farook appeared to have been in some form of communication with people overseas who are persons of interest to U.S. authorities.
Investigators say at least 1 San Bernardino shooter was 'radicalized'
http://www.local10.com/news/investigators-say-at-least-1-san-bernardino-shooter-was-radicalized/36784364
But the jig is up. The left aren't going to win this fight; it's a bridge too far. The people know what they see with their own eyes and they know what the shooters' motive was. Liberals who are still sticking to the narrative today not only look silly, they prove just how dangerous they are. And that danger is going to become increasingly apparent as these attacks keep coming. Allahu Fuckbar.
Federal agents investigating possible terrorism link in San Bernardino mass shooting
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...k-san-bernardino-shooting-20151203-story.html
Doug SmithContact Reporter
Federal officials widened their probe Thursday into a possible terrorist motivation for Wednesday’s San Bernardino shooting rampage, sorting through computer records, tracking the travels of the shooting suspects and interviewing others the two spoke to in recent days.
A senior federal government official said agents believe suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, was in contact with a small number of people authorities suspect are extremists. The official said agents have picked up indications he “communicated” with at least one individual that U.S. law enforcement officials were monitoring as a potential terrorism suspect.
The official, briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly, said agents believe Farook’s connection to a potential terrorism suspect in this country might be someone he knew only tangentially.
But the source said the connection is enough to suggest there might be a “deeper terror matrix” behind the San Bernardino attacks, rather than simply workplace violence.
The official declined to provide more details about the potential terrorism suspect under surveillance in the U.S., except to add that the individual has not been charged in this country and that agents are still evaluating the relationship.
San Bernardino, California, Massacre Suspects Could Have Terror Links
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sa...g-suspects-left-baby-daughter-grandma-n473261
But authorities told NBC News on Thursday that Farook appeared to have been radicalized. They said he had been in touch with people in the Los Angeles area who have expressed jihadist-oriented views.
Intelligence sources told NBC News that Farook appeared to have been in some form of communication with people overseas who are persons of interest to U.S. authorities.
Investigators say at least 1 San Bernardino shooter was 'radicalized'
http://www.local10.com/news/investigators-say-at-least-1-san-bernardino-shooter-was-radicalized/36784364
About those “more mass shootings than days” narrative for 2015
posted at 9:21 am on December 3, 2015 by Taylor Millard
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/03/about-those-more-mass-shootings-than-days-narrative-for-2015/
The Left and their media allies are pushing a new narrative regarding mass shootings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/ (The Washington Post) and Boston Globe had massive headlines yesterday claiming there have been 355 mass shootings in 336 days this year, while Vox included it as part of their “fancy stats” on gun violence. It’s enough to make people squeamish about ever owning a gun, let alone hanging out with a gun owner. The problem is the definition of “mass shooting.” All three websites are using the data supplied by crowd-sourcing website shootingtracker.com, which has a really broad definition of what a “mass shooting” actually is (emphasis mine).
The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event.
Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, “shooting” means “people shot”…
The only requirement is that four or more people are shot in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself (because they often suicide by cop or use a gun to kill themselves to escape punishment), or police shootings of civilians around the gunman. The reasoning behind the latter being that if the shooter is arrested, he will often be charged with injuring people the police actually shot, as that is a foreseeable result of a shooting spree.
Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, “shooting” means “people shot”…
The only requirement is that four or more people are shot in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself (because they often suicide by cop or use a gun to kill themselves to escape punishment), or police shootings of civilians around the gunman. The reasoning behind the latter being that if the shooter is arrested, he will often be charged with injuring people the police actually shot, as that is a foreseeable result of a shooting spree.
These statistics are being manipulated to fit a narrative. Not everyone would consider a gunman to be a “victim” of a mass shooting because he/she are the ones actually pulling the trigger. The definition of “mass” is even up for debate. Dictionary.com defines “mass” as “pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people,” but even that’s a little deceptive. Some people consider a large number of people to be eight, while others consider it to be over a dozen. The FBI’s own study on mass shootings from 2014 is just as broad (emphasis mine).
A total of 1,043 casualties occurred during the incidents included in this study (486 killed, 557 wounded). If a shooter died as a result of the incident, that individual was not included in the casualty totals. In addition, a small number of those identified as wounded were not injured by gunfire but rather suffered injuries incidental to the event, such as being hit by flying objects/shattered glass or falling while running. For the purposes of this study, the FBI did not seek to isolate the exact number of individuals that fell into this category, when research did not allow for that type of injury to be easily discerned.
The median number of individuals killed in each incident was 2, and the median number of individuals wounded in each incident was 2.
The FBI found that 64 incidents (40.0%) would have been categorized as falling within the new federal definition of “mass killing,” which is defined as “three or more killings in a single incident.”
The median number of individuals killed in each incident was 2, and the median number of individuals wounded in each incident was 2.
The FBI found that 64 incidents (40.0%) would have been categorized as falling within the new federal definition of “mass killing,” which is defined as “three or more killings in a single incident.”
The Congressional Research Service has a completely different definition of what they consider a mass shooting.
In order to delineate a workable understanding of public mass shooting for this report, CRS examined scholarly journal articles, monographs, and government reports.12 These sources discussed a variety of terms such as mass murder, mass shooting, mass killings, massacres, and multiple homicide. Definitions of these terms varied with regard to establishing the number of victims or fatalities involved, the weapons used, the motives of the perpetrator, and the timeframes within which the casualties or injuries occurred.
This report defines public mass shootings as incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end such as robbery or terrorism.
This report defines public mass shootings as incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end such as robbery or terrorism.
It’s easy to sit here and point out how the Left’s “fancy stats” are total garbage. The fact is they’re still being used because of how emotional the mass shooting issue is. It’s horrific when the innocent are injured or killed. It tugs at the heartstrings and causes people to consider their own mortality or the mortality of their loved ones. When they hear headlines like, “more mass shootings than days,” it makes them recoil in terror, and consider the government as the only solution. The same goes for people when they see stories about poverty or the golden parachute some ousted corporate executive was able to grab. It’s easy to rush to judgment on a situation, and demand a solution which may or may not actually work. This is why the Right needs to message correctly and be extremely shrewd about it. It’s easy to throw cold, hard logic online or make some snarky comment on how “gun laws don’t stop anything.” But this isn’t exactly the wisest thing to do. It might be best to grab stories of how clerks or women used guns to ward off someone looking to cause them harm. It’s not always going to work, but it needs to be done to combat the “fancy stats” which aren’t worth the websites they’re posted on.
Media Push Activists’ Count of Mass Shootings
Only 21 of 355 shootings media cite meet FBI standard for mass murder
http://freebeacon.com/issues/media-push-activists-count-of-mass-shootings/
BY: Stephen Gutowski
December 3, 2015 11:20 am
Many national news outlets shared mass shooting statistics derived from an anti-gun subsection of the social media site Reddit on Tuesday despite the fact that those numbers clash with a related official standard cited by the FBI.
The New York Times, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/ (the<i> Washington Post</i>), Boston Globe, CBS News, MSNBC, and Newsday all claimed that the shooting in San Bernardino, California was the 355th mass shooting this year. The number was also shared on cable news during coverage of the shooting. The figure is derived from a group of activists who run a “subreddit” named “Guns Are Cool.”
The “Guns are Cool” site describes a mass shooting as any event where four or more people, including the shooter, are injured. This is a looser criteria than the FBI definition of mass murder, which it describes “as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during
Under the FBI standard only 21 of the 355 shootings identified by the anti-gun group qualify as mass murder with a firearm.
Though the FBI does not officially count mass shootings, it has studied “active shooter incidents” that involve “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” In a report released last year, the FBI found over a thirteen year period, between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 “active shooter incidents.” Those incidents do not include gang-related shootings, but do include incidents where nobody was shot or killed.
Many of the shootings that do meet the FBI’s stricter mass murder standard still do not closely resemble Tuesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino. Of the other shootings that would be considered to be “mass murder” by the FBI, ten involved a shooter killing their relatives, four were drug or gang related, and another was a robbery. Two more involved families murdered on private property in which police have not yet released a motive.
The remaining three include the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, and the terrorist attack on a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The group, created by Reddit user BillySpeed and currently managed by Reddit user GhostofAlyeska, defends their alternative standard for tracking mass shootings.
“Here at GrC, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, ‘shooting’ means ‘people shot,'” they explain in a post.
They go on to claim their method for defining mass shootings is “irrefutable” and bemoan how the FBI standard benefits the “gun lobby” as well as the National Rifle Association. “Besides the irrefutable logic of tracking mass shootings this way, another benefit is that it removes medical care (which affects the outcome) from the action (shooting a bunch of people),” a post on the site reads. “The gun lobby benefits from our ability to save those who would otherwise die, even though those gun shot victims are still just as shot and will never be the same. The NRA evades the gigantic costs of gun injuries to society and shifts the burden to taxpayers who often pay the costs for the medical care of the wounded.”
The group also said part of its goal is to influence media coverage of mass shootings.
“Maintaining a list like this also punches a hole in the NRA argument that if mass shootings are televised, more mass shootings will occur via copycats,” the site reads. “In fact, many of these shootings do not receive more than a day’s worth of local coverage. Yet mass shootings continue to occur anyway. We actually think mass shootings should receive more publicity, not less.”
The group said that subscribing to their subreddit “makes [NRA executive vice president] Wayne LaPierre gassy.”
None of the widely shared pieces published by national media outlets noted the activist quality of the group whose statistics they cited.
How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?
By MARK FOLLMAN DEC. 3, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
On Wednesday, a 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/ (article)announced that “The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.” Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015.
At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.
What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.
While all the victims are important, conflating those many other crimes with indiscriminate slaughter in public venues obscures our understanding of this complicated and growing problem. Everyone is desperate to know why these attacks happen and how we might stop them — and we can’t know, unless we collect and focus on useful data that filter out the noise.
For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed. (In 2013, a mandate from President Obama for further study of the problem lowered that threshold to three victims killed.) When we began compiling our database in 2012, we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes. Our goal with this relatively narrow set of parameters was to better understand the seemingly indiscriminate attacks that have increased in recent years, whether in movie theaters, elementary schools or office parks.
The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily from shootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.
It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.
There is value in collecting those stories as a blunt measure of gun violence involving multiple victims. But as those numbers gain traction in the news media, they distort our understanding. According to our research at Mother Jones — subsequently corroborated by the F.B.I. — the more narrowly defined mass shootings have grown more frequent, and overwhelmingly involve legally obtained firearms. Experts in the emerging field of threat assessment believe that this is a unique phenomenon that must be understood on its own.
One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?
Last edited:
So a county employee, i.e., American citizen can't be a Muslim terrorist? That's your position.
What were you saying about dumb, again? LMFAO
Sworder
Member
Why classify like that? Does it weigh heavier to make him Islamic? Isn't American psycho the more appropriate?
Is it even known whether they were Muslim or not?
And how would that even correlate?
Why don't you try following the news instead of wasting bandwidth by posting idiocy?
I don't discriminate based on race, color, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. I judge people based on their individual actions. If you're a piece of shit, then you're a piece of shit and being a white, Chrsitian piece of shit doesn't earn you any special treatment. Those who want to cower in fear, convinced that all Muslims/black/Mexicans/whatever are bad are going to do so no matter what anyone says, but as far as I'm concerned, those are the pieces of shit I don't want moving in next to me.
This post has so much ignorance in it that its amazing. Then again this is how many people think. These so called Muslim haters are retards. If you really wiped out all Muslims, you would end up hating on another group of people and the same shit would start all over again because you have so much fucking hate that you will release it on any minority. Your type of people usually have mental and social issues. Islam wasnt created until around the 9th century....did violence exist before that?? NO FUCKIN SHIT. Before Islam the Christians were persecuted, before that the Jews were persecuted...All im tryna say is that for you prejudice racist dumb fucks reading this, if you got rid of Muslims you dumb ugly cunts would probably just turn your attention to killing off black people, then after that Mexicans, then after that etc, etc...Instead of killing off others, do everyone a favor and kill yourselves instead [emoji4].
xy5jn0
New Member
Example of you being perfectly ok classifying by race AND religion.
It's obvious you have no problem classifying white Christians in your example above. But apparently in your mind it's only ok to classify white Christians.
And yes it's established they were "devout" muslims according to their friends and coworkers.
What's the next excuse, they "identify" as white Christians?
It's pretty obvious CBS is correct, and this was an act of terrorism - and inspired if not orchestrated by radical Islamists in Saudi or Pakistan (if his wife was Syed's primary influence). I may not agree with CBS that it has anything to do with the content of the Koran, but Islamic terrorism is coming to the US and will almost certainly increase. So much for fighting them "over there" so we don't have to do it here.
Sworder
Member
Lol the white Christians is an example of trying to show you that there are people of white Christians decent committing crimes but that doesn't portrait Christians as a whole.
There are Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu and any other religion people that kill or commit crimes. The difference between me and you is that you paint the Muslims with a broad brush including 1.3 Billion people into a classification of "turban, beard, and jihad."
Sworder
Member
Ok, they were Muslim it states. Why does that matter?
He was born in the US and had no previous felonies. Why does that matter?
His brother served in the Navy. Why does that matter?
Point being, why are you seemingly trying to correlate religion with the attacks?
xy5jn0
New Member
Maybe because the perpetrators claim to be doing it in the name of Islam? That certainly is worth noting isn't it?
Sworder
Member
No, because that is not congruent with Islam... Just like the KKK isn't taken seriously as being "Christian."
Do you have to kill ppl to be Muslim?
xy5jn0
New Member
When any of the 20 or so KKK kill someone and claim they did it for Jesus I have no problem with that being reported.
Similar threads
