The massacre in San Bernadino, California is as baffling as it is chilling. I am very familiar with the Redlands and San Bernadino areas since I would spend summers in the area growing up and still have relatives there (including one of the officers responding to this shooting). What is so chilling is the lack of any indication of such an act from a couple that seemed to be living the American dream with a good income and new baby . . . and highly supportive colleagues who they proceeded to slaughter.
For me, the three most chilling facts are the following.
First, Syed Farook, 28, had a good work relationship with these people (he made $51,000 a year as an environmental health specialist for the county) and sat at an office party shortly before killing them. It appears that he may have gotten into an argument with with colleague Nicholas Thalasinos (right), a Messianic Jew who was one of the victims. Thalasinos was known to write caustic comments about Islam on the Internet. (His wife says that Thalasinos often wrote about radical Islam but was friendly with Farook). The argument discussed in the media may have occurred a couple weeks before the party and it is not clear whether the argument had rekindled shortly before the shooting. (One account has Farook telling Thalasinos that he “will never see Israel.”) However, it is clear that these two murderers were planning for terrorism based on the search of their home. A witness said that when Farook disappeared just before the photo session at the party, someone asked, “Where’s Syed?”
Second, both he and his wife Tashfeen Malik, 27, dropped off their 6-month-old girl with his mother Wednesday morning, claiming he had a doctor’s appointment. So these two were willing to abandon their baby in some pursuit of paradise — attaining glory through the slaughter of innocents.
Third, these were not strangers. Not only had these victims worked at Farook’s side, but they actually threw a baby shower for this couple who later slaughtered 14 people (and wounded 17).
Both were devout Muslims who appeared at the party (after Farook left) in dark tactical gear and masks with assault rifles and handguns. From their profiles, these two people would be viewed as well adjusted and well grounded in society. Farook actually called himself a “modern Muslim” on social media to distinguish himself from more traditional Muslims. On his dating profile before he met Malik he said that he was “living life to the fullest” and that he wanted a woman who was interested in “snow boarding, to go out and eat with friends, go camping, working on cars with me.” Indeed, Farook is quoted as telling his colleagues that Americans do not understand Islam and then proceeds to confirm that worst stereotype of Islam by critics.
Farook recently went to Saudi Arabia and may have been radicalized while in the Kingdom (a hotbed for extremism). He traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2013 to meet Malik’s family (who are from Pakistan), and then again in July 2014 to marry her. He would later be in contact with known terrorist figures according to police.
There is a growing belief that Farook was radicalized by his wife who reportedly had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
At their home, police say that they found an IED factory and 7,000 rounds of ammunition for assault rifles, 9-mm. handguns and .22-caliber rifles. So whatever the argument may have done, there was clearly planning for an attack if these accounts prove accurate. The argument may have triggered the massacre but the arsenal suggests that a massacre may have been in the works. What is clear is that both of these individuals were powder kegs before any argument with a co-worker.
The greatest question however remains the road to radicalism. We have seen this pattern before of men visiting Saudi Arabia or Syria and coming back radicalized and unstable.
452 thoughts on “The Massacre and The Aftermath (Updated)”
Since the Muslims are taking so much guff, let’s remember who really got us sucked into this mess in the first place.http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html
Here is the kind of thing Israelis are experts in doing to manipulate other nations’ politicians.
One of their nuclear scientists went rogue. Rogue in that he actually told people the truth about the Israeli WMDs. Their nukes that is. How did they bring him back in? Plied the poor old man with whores. “Honeypot” is the method.
They use it on US Congressman who take junkets to Israel, according to Victor Ostrovsky former Mossad agent in his book “By way of Deception.” That too old for you? Here is Tzipi saying she had sex with Palestinians and threatens them.
Just imitating Esther, is this not so?
“The chief Israeli negotiator and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, said this week that she has had sex with the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority in the peace negotiations with Israel, Saeb Erekat and the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation(PLO) Yasser Abed Rabbo.
Livni’s sexual misdemeanours have been the fodder of the political Arab rumour mill for years, but until now, what the foxy Israeli politician got up to behind closed doors was all guess work.
Lebanese newspaper Al Diyyar broke the story earlier this week that the Knesset Beauty had publicy stated that she and the chief Rabbi of Israel had decided that “It was ok for her to sleep and have sex with strangers, as long as it benefits Israel”.
People wonder how they have such power. The tricks are all laid out in the Bible. just pick it up and read it sometime and you may be shocked at what you find. Sexual manipulation, genocide, collective punishment, it’s about as gory and lurid a record of shame as any.
You have posted many things and you have been reading into the situation on detail.
So bearing in mind the complexities and sheer size of the current mess what strategies would you adopt?
Do you really see America sorting this out?
Because I don’t.
I predict there will be a long drawn out conflict. America will withdraw one day leaving the locals to sort it out.
And nothing will be achieved.
Write your congressman and ask three questions.
1– why is Saudi our ally which is the foremost financier of terror against westerners? Which has an awful human rights record and is not friend of Christians, the majority religion of Americans?
2– why is Turkey our ally which risks nuclear war with Russia to prop up a group of Turkmen fanatics? Which has an awful human rights record and which is no friend of Christians, the majority religion of Americans?
3– why is Israel our ally which sits back and rubs its hands in glee whenever westerners die from terror, sucking us farther into their strategic schemes such as they elaborated in the PNAC position paper before 9-11, which takes our aid and loan guarantees, which has an awful human rights record, and is no friend of Christians, the majority religion of Americans?
Now if your congressman has taken Saudi or Israeli money, or has gone on junkets where they are plied by Mossad paid whores like Israeli Ostrovsky described them doing in his book “By way of deception,” maybe if your congressman is taking military industrial complex money that sucks them into supporting war of any kind, they will only hazard a phony answer to number 3, but they will simply have to ignore one and two because the fact is the Saudis and Turks to say nothing of the Israelis are indeed the worst friends we ever had. We should pray for Putin folks, with adversaries like him we may yet escape the worst possible outcomes that our “allies” are recklessly dragging us towards inexorably.
Here is a great article about the second worst ally the US ever had, the Saudi. Ten shekels to guess the first worst ally the US ever had, and a Thanksgiving leftovers to guess the third.
“As everyone knows, when you cross a camel with a mule, you get a Saudi ruling family member. A camel crossed with a snake produces a Qatari ruler, and finally, a camel having made whoopee with a pig conceives a Kuwaiti sultan. Mind you, I’m being a bit rough on these animals, which are, after all, also God’s creatures. And I do mean the camels, mules, snakes, and pigs. The great mystery, of course, is how do these feudal mobsters get away with it? Take, for example, just a little case of rape of two Nepalese maids by a Saudi “diplomat” in India that emerged only a few weeks ago. The Saudi repeatedly raped, assaulted, starved, and held hostage the two women who worked as housemaids in his house on the outskirts of Delhi. This went on for months, until the two women managed to escape and report the rapes and beatings to the Indian authorities. The pig, and again I apologize to our porcine friends, did not even bother to deny the charges, but simply claimed diplomatic immunity and that was that. The rapist was eventually withdrawn by the Saudis, and will most likely be posted to a friendlier country, where women are not considered human beings, perhaps Qatar, Kuwait, or some other Gulf state
“Hell itself is defiled by the foulness of the Saudi rulers. Uncle Sam should be ashamed of himself for kissing their ass.”
And as no one can forget, 16 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and the first act by the Bush-Cheney gang was to ensure all Saudi “royals” were flown out safely back to their desert craphole and far away from any Congressional committee asking embarrassing questions. What intrigues me is, how in hell do these monsters get away with it? Well, for some of us it’s an easy one: They bribe their way out. Yes, but so did Al Capone until the IRS nailed him, and Al’s crimes were child’s play compared with what the Gulf gangsters have inflicted on us. Let’s not forget that ISIS is a Saudi-Qatari invention, both kleptocracies having produced the financing for the Sunni “rebellion” once that foolish American proconsul had done away with Saddam’s officer corps. The Saudis now claim that they no longer finance ISIS, but they would, wouldn’t they? Qatar does not even bother to lie. The hundreds of thousands of dead, the more than 5 million refugees, and the total catastrophe that is the Middle East today can be traced back to Saudi and Qatari blood money ensuring peace at home at the expense of others. Iran is to the Saudis what Uncle Sam is to Iran: the Great Satan. And since day one after the fall of the Shah, Saudi money has been working inside the Beltway to make sure Iran remains America’s No. 1 enemy. Saudi corruption of the American process at times equals that of AIPAC, and then some. Israel does it with boycotts and threats, the Saudis with cold hard cash. (Incidentally, Israel and Saudi are as close as Elton John and David Furnish, but unlike the latter, the former pretend to have a frosty relationship.)
So how is it possible that on one hand Saudi and Gulf money pays for the thousands of schools throughout the Muslim world that teach anti-Americanism, and on the other the Pentagon recently approved the sale of 600 Patriot defense missiles, not to mention thousands of precision-guided munitions to replenish stocks exhausted by the Yemen campaign, as big a war crime as we’ve had so far? The Saudi war machine has been heroic, killing mostly civilians and bombing hospitals and schools. In reality, the Saudis would lose against Monte Carlo, which only boasts of a police force, but they justify a war against Yemen by having conjured an Iranian role in the conflict. After months of bombing and strangling their neighbor, they still have nothing to show for it. The son of the ruler has, however, had great fun in ordering air strikes and tank charges against women and children, and at times sees himself as a reincarnation of George Patton, but that’s another story altogether.
In a speech in Dallas a few years ago, Tom Fleming said that there is no democracy in America, just special interests. How right he was. If we had democracy, the Saudi gang would have been thrown out on their ear long before necessary rulers like Saddam and Qaddafi. (Look at the horrors that followed their demises and weep for S & Q.) Riyadh has exported and financed more terror than Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Tripoli put together, and has been doing it since that arch phony FDR first discovered the child-molesting Ibn Saud emerging from the desert covered in black gold. They’ve been sitting pretty ever since, and American feminists seem to ignore their outrages against women. Even in Africa, where cultural oppression of females is a sine qua non, women have been known to protest for their rights. Not in Saudi, where they would be punished immediately. Yet Western feminist activists never mention it. Obama recently licked the foul-smelling sandals of the Saudi ruler, the Saudi rulers being the equivalent of Homo naledi, the prehistoric humanoid recently discovered in a South African cave. Hell itself is defiled by the foulness of the Saudi rulers. Uncle Sam should be ashamed of himself for kissing their ass.
As I was writing this, 800-plus visitors were trampled to death in Mecca. The rulers denied any responsibility. So what else is new?”
let me introduce folks to who hates who in the middle east
IS makes no sense unless you understand it as a Saudi financed operation to gut Assad on the west, and attack the Shiite government of Iraq on the west.
(obviously the US and Israel share hizballah, assads, iran and russia as foes. ironically the shiite government of iraq was initially our puppet regime. now maybe not so much!)
Saudis not only hate iran because it is shiite, not only because it is allied with russia, but because it is a republic.
just like iraq replaced a monarchy with a republic, so did iran.
Saudis are next.
Who are their buddies?
Dr Ninny, observe that your UAE multicultural cosmopolites, are in league with the royals and emirs of Qatar and Saudi. Their strategic interest in supporting the IS phenomenon is obvious. Their fig leaf of contributing to airstrikes is not very convincing.
John Smith: Gulf States
I have explained how I see it. ISIS has made their intentions clear.
The US bombing of IS is not going to work. Here is the rare moment of insight into a complicated problem.
John Smith: Bombing – Military Opinion
The Military opinion says it all really. Sir Max Hastings a leading broadcaster/journalist in UK called British bombing without strategy and ground support “lunacy”.
Dr the one part of the intercepted state department communique that you may wish to consider for its relevance to our discussion is this:
“political activism among expatriates is discouraged by UAE authorities.”
You could probably move to the good ole USA and if you can suffer us gun toting rednecks, your expertise in maxiollofacial surgery could probably be put to good social use. Best of luck to you, Sir.
Of course. It must be only the Qataris and Saudis funding IS and the rest. The UAE surely has nothing to do with it. Surely not!
The state department must have it all wrong too.
John Smith Funding of ISIS
I have explained the nature of potential alliances and where extreme players are located. Of course it is possible that money is coming from extremists groups in other Gulf States but funds could also come from extreme groups in UK EU and even USA.
What needs to be understood is ISIS declaring that it will topple certain regimes in the Middle East so it seems unlikely that these Governments would fund the enemy intent on deposing them especially if they are flying missions against them. But that doesn’t mean that ISIS has not penetrative these States.
I will take it on your word doctor that the UAE is not funding Salafist or Wahabi militias and clerics spreading the toxic, primitive and violent strain of Islam.
This article must be wrong. It says the UAE is following the Saudi lead on this.
John Smith: Huffington Post Article
I don’t think the article is accurate. ISIS in related to Kharijites (the ones who broke away). Wahab funding is probably relevant and UAE Islam is not Wahab.
Thanks for explaining that, I was curious.
But my question concerned working in Dubai and does that create a certain bias since the rich emirs patients likely to be getting facial surgery in Dubai, may also be covertly funding IS like the rich Saudis?
I mean you would be doing good work to redirect the stupid Americans from thinking that a couple of Muslim fanatics committed this terror, when actually it was a failure to ban guns that makes the difference. Now, the pipe bombs they had were totally illegal, but that is besides the point yes? The Sultan thumbs LIKE!
I am going to ask a few questions that probe for bias and excuse me if at first it seems out of left field here.
I read this article since somebody here suggested an online search, and this is what I found.
It says that after you lost your license in the UK for punching your patient ten times, that you have resurfaced to practice medicine in Dubai. I think maybe you have an explanation for why you punched your patient, your side of the story, but that is not related to the bias factor in the present conversation.
Mr/Dr Ninian Sir, are you working in Dubai now?
Isn’t Dubai one of those Emirates all cozy with the Saudis?
Do they rich Dubai patients needing plastic surgery contribute to the IS on the sneak, possibly? I dont imagine they would tell you if they did, I was just wondering. Do you feel that working in such a place where the elite coverty funds the IS and al Nusra and al Queda and who knows what other fanatical militias, may make you a biased observer who wants to blame a terror incident on “guns” and the “Second amendment” rather than a couple of Salafist fanatics?
Please feel free to tell us all about that, Perhaps my fear is misgiven?
I am an NHS whistleblower and you may be interested in this response published in the British Medical Journal.
The recording of a crime by the police against the General Medical Council of perverting the course of justice is historic.
I have discussed this case in as much detail as is possible on the following link:
John Smith: UAE and ISIS
UAE have been supporting US in missions against ISIS
Dubai is very cosmopolitan and multicultural. Residents get on very well. The streets are very safe as a rule and there is tolerance and a great deal of respect. Crime rate is very low and it is safe walking anywhere. The Emiratis are delightful and welcoming to strangers.
It is not a democracy and is a state in the United Arab Emirates. It is very progressive for a country that had no city 15 years ago. Dubai was just sand and nothing else. It is now a large city housing the tallest building in the world and is a major commercial centre.
In my last post I wrote, “This information, even assuming its accuracy, is as totally illogical and irrelevant to the San Bernadino incident as Ninnianpeckett’s assertion that Americans ‘are armed to the teeth.’ ”
I meant to say, “…is as totally illogically related and irrelevant…”
Information is, of course, neither logical nor illogical. Only those using the information are.
Ken Rogers: Clarification
Thanks for this.
1, December 8, 2015 at 3:35 pm
“States ranked for gun owners with 51 being the worst. Let’s see….California…#46! Maybe armed to the teeth isn’t such a good description of anyone living in the sunshine state. Don’t have time to find the link right now, but later…”
This information, even assuming its accuracy, is as totally illogical and irrelevant to the San Bernadino incident as Ninnianpeckett’s assertion that Americans “are armed to the teeth.”
What is relevant is the fact that none of the unarmed people endangered (and/or killed) by the shooters in San Bernadino had the means to defend themselves effectively.
It was only the armed police who were able to defend themselves and others from the rampaging Farooks.
See my previous post regarding the similar incident in Hungerford, England, in which unarmed police stood by helplessly as the shooter killed 16 and wounded 14 people.
In America, there are approximately 270 million firearms possessed by civilians, and only 897,000 carried by police. Approximately 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns.
It’s quote clear that you are right once again and I am totally wrong. I am so wrong I should apply for the tenured position of Chair of Wrongness, Faculty of Wrongness, University Wrongness, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Because 270 million guns is absolutely nothing. It is clearly a drop in the ocean. Totally insignificant and in no way could pose a threat to anyone.
It is clear that anyone making this suggestion just doesn’t understand anything and should be barred from this website.
1, December 8, 2015 at 1:43 pm
N: “Bigfatmike: It is a frightening story and a relief that no one was hurt. I understand your reasoning.”
N: “It’s unfortunate that it didn’t work out like this in San Berardino. (sic) Seventeen bodies in a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth. The right to bear arms should have protected them according to your argument. But Guns (sic) didn’t protect these victims – they were responsible for the carnage.
KR: This is ridiculous reasoning on its face, as none of the San Bernadino victims was armed and therefore able to defend him/herself. The responding police, on the other hand, who were “armed to the teeth” were able to prevail over the heavily armed shooters precisely because they were armed, unlike the unarmed police in the following incident in your own country:
GM: “Firearm policy in the United Kingdom has been driven by sensationalized coverage of firearm murders for over 15 years. First, in August 1987, the small town of Hungerford, England was stalked for eight hours by a deranged man, who shot people seemingly at whim. By the time the killing was over, Michael Ryan had killed 16 people and wounded another 14, before shooting himself (Malcolm 2002: 201).
GM: “Media attention focused almost exclusively on how such a person had managed to obtain firearms legally, although in hindsight other matters are more amazing. The public was not shocked that the disarmed police could do nothing to stop him nor that no one in the town had the will or the means to resist.
N: “Don’t think I don’t understand your message. But it is only a snapshot of the whole picture.
KR: Your emotional refusal to acknowledge the voluminous statistical evidence against gun control’s effectiveness in reducing violent crime reflects your, not Bigfatmike’s, seizing on “only snapshots of the whole picture,” and you then mangle the snapshots, to boot.
It has become increasingly obvious from your posts that thinking logically is not your strong suit, and is most obvious of all in your irrational advocacy of more restrictive gun control in the US, notwithstanding its abject failure, if not outright reduction in public safety, in Canada, Australia, Wales, and Great Britain.
I certainly agree with you that Alex Jones conducted himself like a histrionic professional wrestler in his Piers Morgan interview, but I also have to observe that you’ve conducted yourself like an irrationally bloviating pseudo-intellectual on the subject.
Well in a free democracy that’s for the majority to judge…. If your case continue to be made eloquently and without any disconfidulobisy you never know, your argument may win the day.
I think you would be better off recording a new song with Dolly Parton. Folks might start listenin’ a bit more to the lyrics….
ninian… “Go speak to some parents at Sandy Hook and you will get another point of view.” LOL
Only someone who sucks up main stream media lies/news and has an abject fear of being called horrible names like OMG ‘conspiracy theorist’ still believes that anyone died at Sandy Hook. Or maybe they’re just too lazy and committed to a politically correct viewpoint to change . Wouldn’t want your blog buddies turning on you. OHHH it’s horrible!
“Monty, you really should read this study comparing the US crime rate with those of countries which have restricted and/or banned guns. ”
The gun control fanatics also ignore all the lives saved by guns.
There are report that guns are involved to save lives hundreds of thousands of times each year.
I know it does happen because I am the survivor of such an incident. I was assaulted on the street, once, in DC’s Shaw neighborhood. After some brief grappling, i ran into a liquor store on the corner yelling for the clerk to call the police. MY assailant boldly followed me inside carrying a broken pint whiskey bottle in his hand. It was not till the clerk pulled up a lever action rifle and racked the lever to put a round in the chamber that my assailant turned and walked out of the store.
No shots were fired. We never called the police. I profusely expressed my thanks. But I don’t recall that the clerk or (presumably) his wife ever said a word.
There is no doubt in my mind that without that rifle, that day I would have been gravely wounded or dead.
Gun control fanatics won’t talk about the good and the lives saved by guns. But it is true. It happens. I am the survivor of exactly that kind of incident.
Bigfatmike: It is a frightening story and a relief that no one was hurt. I understand your reasoning.
I wonder what would have happened if the baddie had a gun? Would you be here to tell the tale? And what if he ran away and was shot in the back in a panic? The store keeper might be serving a life term for being nothing more than scared.
It would appear in this case everything worked out well thank God.
It’s unfortunate that it didn’t work out like this in San Berardino. Seventeen bodies in a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth. The right to bear arms should have protected them according to your argument. But Guns didn’t protect these victims – they were responsible for the carnage.
Don’t think I don’t understand your message. But it is only a snapshot of the whole picture.
Go speak to some parents at Sandy Hook and you will get another point of view.
States ranked for gun owners with 51 being the worst. Let’s see….California…#46! Maybe armed to the teeth isn’t such a good description of anyone living in the sunshine state. Don’t have time to find the link right now, but later…
51. Washington D.C.
50. New York
49. New Jersey
43. Rhode Island
35. New Mexico
25. New Hampshire
23. West Virginia
20. North Dakota
19. North Carolina
15. South Carolina
13. South Dakota
Hildegarde: I think I found the Piers Morgan / Alex Jones interview, from 2013 and the Petition to deport Piers back to the UK. Which I think is brilliant.
What I don’t understand is why Alex suddenly starts to talk like a wrestler.
He is obviously someone who will use whatever means to win.
But still loses…..
You see all the usual techniques of a failed argument. Decibels, factual inaccuracies and ignorance of statistics that he was bound to have been asked.
So when gun control does come, I think it is very unlikely that Alex and some of his colleagues will accept the democratic decision of the majority of Americans.
Democracy is all very well when you are on the winning side but for some people, it is totally unacceptable when you are the loser.
And there you have it. The reason for America’s problems. The greatest enemy you face is not IS but yourselves.
You have a State of Anarchy and I have been able to demonstrate this with only slight provocation of some bloggers who do not let facts and reason cloud the reason of delusion.
So what’s to be done. It will be slow, it will be long but society will change. It always does.
Although Piers markets himself as an mat on which you wipe your feet, by exposing this vitriol, there will be an effect on public opinion and in particular on the anti gun lobby.
It’s very clever.
Combined with relentless criticism of gun violence and death this can only strengthen the anti gun lobby as the progunners have not made any suggestions as to how to form a strategy to control these killings.
It is to be noted that two past presidents of the NRA were found guilty of gun murder.
Robert J. Dowlut, NRA general counsel, was convicted of shooting his girlfriend’s mother when he was 17 yes old.
In 1981, newspaper reporters learned that Harlon Bronson Carter had been convicted of murder without malice aforethought fifty years earlier in Laredo, Texas, following the death of 15-year-old Ramón Casiano. In 1981, newspaper reporters learned that Carter had been convicted of murder without malice aforethought fifty years earlier in Laredo, Texas, following the death of 15-year-old Ramón Casiano. The then 17-year-old Carter had believed that Casian Casiano had information about the theft of his family’s car, and, carrying a shotgun, asked Casiano to return to the Carter home to submit to questioning. When Casiano refused, and then brandished a knife, Carter fatally shot him. The conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals, which found that the judge in the case had issued incorrect jury instructions regarding laws related to self-defense. In 1981, when newspaper reporters learned of the conviction, Carter Carter initially denied any knowledge of the incident but later acknowledged that he had been responsible for the shooting.
It takes a certain type of person to go out with a shotgun to talk about an issue. It takes a certain type of person to argue the case in the staged manner of Alex Jones. It takes a certain type of person not to express remorse, shock and outrage.
And I’m not one of them….
The scenario is this and nothing else. Americans are being shot to death in large numbers on the streets on a regular basis. This includes children at school.
Carrying guns has not prevented this to date.
Terrorist groups will find it easier to commit firearms offences in a country where firearms acquisition is easy. And this has been demonstrated.
The situation is unacceptable.
Gun control is inevitable…..
1, December 4, 2015 at 6:31 pm
“It’s been said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Gun violence in America right now is a public health crisis of epidemic proportions. I think you insult the Founder’s greatly to suggest that they would have allowed this sort of violence to continue unchecked.”
Monty, you really should read this study comparing the US crime rate with those of countries which have restricted and/or banned guns.
Here’s an excerpt from that study:
“In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave.
“In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over
20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
“Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. (Emphasis added)
“Despite Britain’s banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime and firearm crime continue to grow.”
Ken Rogers……I’ve recommended that people google “no criming in U.K.” to learn about Great Britain’s intentional distortion of their actual crime rate.
Almost seems like lying is a British national norm, either individually,or “collectively”.
Ken Rogers is wrong.
I have posted the stats with references. He needs to read this up.
Gun control is coming to the USA and it will be by democratic will. It may take years and may take a change in the constitution or they make guns too expensive to own. (eg indemnity insurance).
America will have to start to fight to win if IS is to be defeated. And there is no sign of that. History is repeating itself
And to do this they need to understand what is going on and develop a strategy.
Tom Nash has not put forward any suggestions. And you can draw your own conclusions a’s to why.
Not too crazy about continuing a dialogue with a liar, Ninian.
ninnianpeckitt;;;; “But the most puzzling question is why would an one agree to be interviewed by him in the first place? You would need to take your gun for self defence.” Hold on to your hat and dare to click on the video I posted above. You’re in for a ride, cowboy. He basically annihilates Piers AND CNN. Piers has since been fired.
ninianpeckitt “And if the murderer hadn’t got a gun she wouldn’t have been shot in the first place” No shit Sherlock…NO one can argue with that. That’s a goodun.
Ninian; “We would have survived without the US. The Russians had Germany beaten by 1942 after Stalingrad.” Sorry that doesn’t fit with American Polit…. um… I man history.
Comments are closed.